WASHINGTON—Despite responses from prospective manufacturers indicating already-published concepts for replacing bilevel Superliners would be difficult to execute, Amtrak management moved ahead with requests that carbuilders subsequently rejected. The result has been a seven-month delay in issuing a final Request for Proposals that might be acceptable to remaining bidders.
That’s among the conclusions of Amtrak’s independent Inspector General in a report released Tuesday (Dec. 17).
Five Amtrak departments were involved with a procurement process that began with Requests for Information in 2022. Rather than accept what carbuilders warned would be production limitations, such as simultaneously delivering multiple car types as complete trainsets and installing elevators in the bilevels, Amtrak released images of what it had in mind in the summer of 2023 before any RFP was issued [see “Amtrak reveals new long-distance trainset concepts …,” Trains News Wire, Aug. 30, 2023].
“Company executives tasked with making the final decisions about the requirements told us they weighed the carbuilders’ feedback against the Commercial department’s market research,” the report says, “and decided to push the limits of what the carbuilders said was feasible.”
The report doesn’t specifically acknowledge what News Wire has been told by other sources: that Amtrak management had promised representatives from the disabled community that elevators would be part of the design. The feature was included in the initial RFP released last December [see “Amtrak issues Request for Proposals …,” News Wire, Dec. 22, 2023]. Insistence on maintaining that commitment and the delivery of multiple car types lasted into June 2024, through several rounds of RFP rejections by the manufacturers, and resulted in the resignations of several experienced Amtrak veterans involved with previous procurements. A Federal Railroad Administration risk assessment, conducted in March 2024, deduced that the procurement had an “opaque decision-making process.”
By the time a July 2024 revision was issued, according to the Inspector General report, Amtrak reduced the number of car types “and identified various design elements it was considering modifying as ‘must haves,’ ‘nice to haves,’ and “won’t haves.’” It also included “the option to deliver cars that would be interoperable with the existing fleet as a bridge to full trainsets.” Compatibility with aging Superliners introduces more complexities, since suspension and electrical systems built decades apart are necessarily different.
Accurately evaluating an RFP from a carbuilder’s perspective not only involves engineering considerations, but also whether interest will be garnered from parts suppliers. If specifications change even slightly, it means going back to those suppliers to ascertain capabilities and costs.
The report notes, “because the company is revising its RFP in consideration of carbuilder feedback, we are not making a recommendation in this area at this time.” However, it acknowledges that “as the program progresses, the company will face a series of additional decisions about what to include or exclude in the base order, and future options could further impact the program’s schedule and costs. These decisions will be foundational to the type of long-distance service the company provides over the coming decades.”
On the other hand, the report acknowledges that risks of new designs must be weighed against the increased costs of maintaining aging equipment, especially given possible future funding shortfalls.
The irony of the 1979 demise of trains like the original Floridian, National Limited, and Lone Star is that the high maintenance expense because of heritage equipment they utilized at the time would have soon been reduced by the Superliners’ arrival. Instead, those costs were baked in to financials that helped doom routes that could only be resurrected at great expense once they were abandoned.
Adapting maintenance facilities for different equipment is another costly challenge Amtrak is facing with the impending arrival of the second-generation Acelas and the Aero trainsets.
The report concludes by recommending that Amtrak:
— Clarifies all stakeholders roles, lines of authority, and decision-making;
— Prioritizes filling senior management and program team vacancies;
— Develops contingency plans for high-impact risks.
A appendix includes responses from three Amtrak executive vice presidents responsible for marketing and commercial activities, capital delivery, and financials. They generally agree with the report’s recommendations but say protracted RFP submission deadlines were primarily driven by carbuilders’ requests for extensions, and to facilitate “a robust and equitable procurement approach, balancing industry input and program needs.”
While the report only deals with the initial bilevel procurement, a subsequent “Phase 4” of the program proposes acquiring single-level long distance equipment. It is possible Amtrak could piggyback on an order by VIA Rail Canada, if or when that order takes place, depending on the reception to VIA’s solicitation of manufacturers [see “VIA Rail Canada seeks bids for new long-distance trainsets,” News Wire, Dec. 9, 2024].
I wonder why everything in the procurement and the OIG has to be so secretive? Since Stadler has built a passenger elevator for the Rocky Mountaineer cars and the OIG report claims none of the responding car builders said they had experience. Perhaps the specifications were requiring SS car shells and they opted out. That might also be good line of inquiry for the OIG to follow as to why.
“When the company asked car builders if they had experience designing bilevel cars with elevators or other means of conveying passengers with reduced mobility between the different levels of the car, none reported having any experience producing elevators inside the trainset. ”
https://www.railvolution.net/news/new-carriages-for-rocky-mountaineer-delivered
So from the OIG audit linked above. “Our audit focuses on phase 1, which the company plans to complete in 2035 at an estimated cost of $7 billion. “… ” Phase 1: Procuring bilevel equipment for the company’s western routes that use Superliner I cars.”… “Superliner I, Average Age of Cars 43, Number of Cars – 257”
So the OIG missed the forest for the trees in that the procurement process envisioned by America’s Railroad is programmed to cost $27.3 million per replacement bi-level car vs say $3-5 million the rest of the world pays. Perhaps they should look into that?
“only one of six car vendors affirmatively said it could produce the number of car types the company planned to request”
Anyone want to speculate on which manufacturer this is? My guess is either Stadler or Alstom.
The one fact that cannot be ignored is that on STRACNET lines, you will never have 48″ platforms unless they are setback by about three additional feet or you install gauntlet tracks… FOR EVERY LITTLE STOP. Single level cars are just not feasible, nor desirable from a passenger perspective. They are less efficient and would reduce capacity by a huge amount raising prices.
We are blessed with one of the biggest loading gauges of any network in the world, we should take full advantage of every bit of it! We can’t let manufacturers dictate the final product. This is a big enough order that they can design and tool up a factory to build what we need.
Wow those car designs are absolutely terrible. Single open bathroom on an LD sleeper? Have fun with that.
I like the view from the upper level on a Superliner but as many have already said, they should just go to single level and use Viewliners. It would give them nationwide flexibility on their fleet assignments.
Single level will require either longer trains to accommodate an equal number of passengers or shorter trains with less capacity. Less capacity would be fine if you had at least two trains a day (each direction) on each route but then you would need more cars which would drive up costs. Private operators such as Brightline or Rocky Mountaineer operating LD trains as was mentioned by one commentor would not work as it does not fit the business model of either. LD routes in the West cannot be operated like the luxury trains of Rocky M. they need to meet the needs of people in areas they serve where is little on no other transportation options in addition to people just travelling for pleasure. LD routes operate as multiple corridors within one route, most people don’t travel the entire route but destinations between. Amtrak needs to be reorganized into two or three separate business units NEC, State, LD funded corridors with separate Board & funding to reflect more transparency, funding equity & develop the best service model for their patrons.
My idea was simply a “concept” thinking outside the box of the current Amtrak system. I was using Rocky Mountaineer and Brightline as examples of other companies who have an interest in passenger train operations. I didn’t mean they would copy their current business model over to long-distance service. We just need to end the Amtrak monopoly and bring competition into the business. Splitting Amtrak into separate units would be a major advancement over what we have now.
Yes, Galen, you are spot on. The Long Distance trains have subsidized the NEC for far too long and to their detriment. They need their own CEO and directors that are concerned about the long distance trains and will protect them for those patrons. Amtrak makes decisions based on the processes used by the NEC segment of the company, Different, out of the box ideas need to be examined based on cost, not price. Locomotive manufacturers have built few new locomotives in the last few years yet they have produced 1000’s of nearly new locomotives by rebuilding and refurbishing older units into nearly new units, Why is that not a consideration here? If the SS shells of the Superliner equipment are in good shape or can be rebulit into good shape at a lesser cost than building new, and upgraded with new appliances and equipment, then that should also be an option. Wrecked units could be some of the first units refurbished and put into the system making it better for all LD routes and I would suspect at greatly less than 27.3 million per unit. It seems like Amtrak is saying, “if we build them, (new passenger cars) people will come.” But the fact is that riders of trains are not interested in the next big thing, they are only interested in getting from Point A to Point B in a comfortable, relaxing and enjoyable method, different from driving and with more scenic value than taking a plane in which only the window seats have any view and then that is from miles up. The only option that makes sense other than this is chucking the whole long distance idea as it currently exists and instead building one Long Distance, high speed network from east cost through to the west coast and through the heart or spine of the country with as few curves as possible with Washington DC (or similar city) as the launch point and San Francisco as the end point, (With regional lines already in existence linking to it) and with the government funding the entirety of the project so that the power of the federal procurement system can be brought to bear in a way that an individual entity the size of Amtrak could never accomplish. It would require long tunnels and multiple trains per day in each direction and would be electrified. For these reasons alone it will never happen but that is what would need to happen to make sense of the entity that is Amtrak and its current bureaucracy that is completely blind to the needs of the LD Trains.
Sadly, current Amtrak management is NOT interested in expanding or improving the existing, long-distance passenger train network. With my 36 years in passenger rail operations, I have concluded it’s time we rebuild a true, long-distance, passenger train system in the USA. Let’s think outside the box —
We start by changing Amtrak’s company charter and make it a dedicated, corridor and regional passenger train operator, divested of the requirement to run long-distance trains. Amtrak could then focus on working with its existing (and new) state partners to provide short-haul, multi-frequency service around the country.
We then create a separate network to expand and upgrade our long-distance passenger train system that could somewhat mimic how the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) works with and supports the airline industry.
How it could work, is that we task the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) with selecting essential, long-distance routes over existing and an expanded network. The individual freight railroads and other companies (Rocky Mountaineer, Brightline, new corporations, etc.) could be incentivized to operate long-distance trains over the basic system, so that all routes are equally required to run daily service with basic equipment (coaches, sleepers, diners, lounges, domes).
The FRA could fund the purchase of locomotives and passenger cars, in lieu of paying for a (dispatching) train control network, as the FAA operates Air Traffic Control for the airlines. The railroads would be responsible for basic and routine equipment maintenance.
The FRA could build, maintain and operate train stations, or, individual cities/towns could assume ownership and control of their local stations, i.e. like airport authorities operate the individual airports around the country.
The FRA could fund infrastructure and rail-capacity improvements to optimize passenger and freight operations on the specified passenger routes. Passenger trains, regardless of the operator, would have trackage rights of the individual rail routes on the designated network.
The FRA could operate a nationwide reservation/ticketing system that all passenger train operators would be required to use, thereby standardizing this function for every carrier.
This is may not be a perfect concept, but It’s time we look at removing Amtrak as the nationwide, monopoly operator, concentrated in Washington, DC and restore competition in the long-distance passenger train business. We give billions of dollars to highway construction/maintenance and to the FAA Air Traffic Control System and to Airport Authorities. It’s time we equalize the funding so that individual railroads (CSX, NS, BN, UP, CPKC, Rocky Mountaineer, Brightline & any other new carriers) could be incentivized to operate modern, appealing, efficient, long-distance trains. The demand exists. The public will use trains that provide true service. We just need to create the network.
Some type of P3 is probably the best solution, with public funding for everything Below-the-rail, terminals, platforms, mainlines, daily turning yard, and high-dollar risk.
Even as currently hamstrung, the current LD train operations can support themselves financially from consumer revenue when so structured while paying for everything Above-the-rail, including operations, equipment capital, equipment maintenance, first-dollar risk, credit card charges, and food.
https://www.railwayage.com/passenger/intercity/ending-a-50-year-embargo-in-the-fra-amtrak-long-distance-study/
There’s a proven product in the Viewliner platform. I’ll be dead before Amtrak gets new LD equipment. So Inept.
The Santa Fes carried more people not just in the coaches, but in the lounge and the diner. Too many issues though. I have to agree with the people urging single-level cars. And high-level platforms.
After reading the twists in AMTRAK’s long distance procurement process, it is apparent that procurement is a broken process and not likely to be fixed with current management in place.
Ya think! Spot on as are others. Amtrak was a great idea but it has been broken from almost the beginning and only brand new, non-legacy management will ever get off the idea that trains are all “commuter” operations irregardless of how many miles they traverse in their daily routes…
Re: “The irony of the 1979 demise of trains like the original Floridian, National Limited, and Lone Star is that the high maintenance expense because of heritage equipment they utilized at the time would have soon been reduced by the Superliners’ arrival.”
The Floridian & National Ltd. were both victims of poorly maintained tracks, which too often limited train speeds to less than 40 MPH. Giving those routes updated rolling stock while neglecting the track condition would have been of no practical use towards gaining profitability.
Equipping bi-level cars with an elevator should never be considered a good idea. Let ADA passengers stay on lower levels and be happy with that.
The electrified double-decker Finnish “Santa Claus Express” train seems ideal & something that Amtrak should try & emulate.
I agree. Go single level. The bi-level design for western long distance trains really started when the Santa Fe ordered the El Capitan equipment. Before then, single level cars were the norm.
Amtrak should do what they did at the beginning to re-equip faster and use a proven, existing design. This turned out to be the Metroliners and ultimately became Amfleet. The Viewliner designs are great and proven; “no need to reinvent the wheel.”
Suspect VIA is going to have these same problems. Main problem for both VIA and Amtrak is lack of enough locked in car order numbers.
Bilevels do offer a better view for passengers and a quieter ride since the upper level is further from the track.
As to the view, I think dome cars have accomplished the task. As to quiet, I have viewed numerous modern single-level European trains running at close to 200 mph pretty quietly. As to the height, think of an upside-down clock pendulum on less than optimum track. I’d rather be below.
Last time I rode the SW Chief numerous frequent riders stated their preference for the lower deck due to less sway. I was on the upper deck and it was pretty bad. Next time it will be lower for me too.
Replacing the bilevel Superliners with an upgraded design is both more efficient & more accessible:
a) Simple & Reliable Rack & Pinion elevators already exist & can have a defective component replaced while the train is in use if needed.
b) The bilevel carriages can have a simple folding ramp that allows wheelchair users & other disabled enter from the station without assistance.
c) Only some of the carriages need to have both an elevator & stairs, with the majority having only stairs.
d) Since a well planned passenger rail system has individual trains operated with a locomotive on both ends so the trains can from one end to the other & then back again without reversing, the compatibility with the single level Superliner Carriages is not needed.
e) There is no easy way for wheelchair users to enter & disembark from the Superliners as an external lift has to be use. This makes it difficult to evacuate wheelchair users in the Superliner carriage, unlike an updated Viewliner bilevel.
f) The big issue with procurement of passenger rail carriages in the US is that they are not manufactured on a dedicated assembly line. Making a dedicated assembly line for Amtrak & Canada’s VIA to make both single & bilevel carriages for both nations would cut the costs per unit down to between a half to a quarter of what they are currently.
g) Making the equivalent of bare carriages with only the bathrooms, stairs & lifts installed and offering them for lease to third party businesses to outfit & sell tickets for would reduce Amtrak’s costs & total investment while doubling the ridership. I am suggesting that Amtrak outfit their half of the train set & a third party outfit the other half with their designs for the kind of passenger service they operate. Imagine essentially two trains, each with: an engine, baggage carriages and fifteen passenger carriages joined. With Amtrak for families with children, elderly, etc. And with ACME providing live music, a reasonably priced bar, smoking carriage, and other features that are not comparable with Amtrak’s business model…
Too many chefs spoil the broth. Amtrak would best make single-level passenger cars a system wide application in renewal of its long distance roster as Via Rail Canada is proposing. Much expenses would be saved in a system wide uniform long distance fleet which would be universally compatible from the Northeast to the Pacific Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Atlantic Seaboard. A combined order with Via Rail Canada (with its consent) would be even more economical.
Single-level passenger cars are more versatile with both high level platforms and low level platforms. They are more ADA compliant allowing the handicap and infirmed access to the whole train. No more stairs to climb when boarding and alighting. They are more aesthetic with uniform roof profile with the locomotives and baggage cars rather than the “freight train” affect with staggered roof lines of high profile bilevel cars and low profile locomotives and cars.
Agree. What was the justification for the bi-level superliners in the first place? Was it to be able to pack more people into one car, thus fewer cars needed, less maintenance, etc.?
Amtrak should get out of the long-distance train business and focus its attention on corridors where the cost to upgrade the highways and airways is cost prohibitive.
The corridor equipment should be as simple as possible, i.e. single level business and coach class cars augmented by a cafe/lounge car.
It is time to discontinue the long-distance trains. If it were not for the long-distance trains, Amtrak would be able to cover its operating costs and contribute a meaningful amount to its fixed costs.
Incorrect statement.
Where is providing intercity passenger rail transportation listed in the U.S. Constitution as a specific government responsibility?
The long distance routes beat out the NEC and State Corridors in revenue passenger miles by a lot. In the transportation industry that is a more important metric. That also shows they are the ones moving people the most distance, and giving the most benefit from passenger rail and it cleaner more efficient means of transportation. The long distance network in reality is the shining star, despite what Amtrak’s faulty accounting would have you think.
I too believe that Amtrak should just do away with the bi-level design. In my opinion the cost of design and building far outweigh any benefits of bi-level cars.
IMHO, Amtrak should standardize its fleet system-wide using Single-level equipment based on the Siemens venture or Airo cars for coaches, lounge cars, and dining cars. Amtrak should set up maintenance contracts to maintain these cars properly.
I like the viewliner design. Could Siemens build viewliner cars? IMHO the configurations that Siemens uses in Europe would not work in the United States.
What happens when we run Amtrak procurement like the Pentagon.
Sounds like Amtrak should go with a single level nationwide consist instead of maintaining two disparate fleets… As long as the ADA is enforced this will be the only way that their rolling stock will be 100% accessible.
Sounds like Bilevels could use a ramp design instead of current twisting stairs or contemplated elevator (which likely will be a maintenance headache).