[smallspy]

I hadn’t heard about corrosion issues - my understanding was that one of the issues with retaining Acela 1 trainsets was that Avelia would need Acela maintenance bays to be rebuilt to its specs.

There are no corrosion issues with the old Acela sets. The issues stem from maintenance - being over 20 years old - and the fact that no one wanted to build new coaches to extend them.

They are also getting a far better financing deal with the Avelia sets, which was the final nail in the coffin.

Are you sure? Looking at a consist sheet from earlier this week GO seems to have 150-200 spare unused coaches right now.

There are about 175 unused coaches, sure.

What are you going to use to pull them? There are almost no spare locos at this point - thus the tender for another 20. Cab cars are also a problem, but the rebuilt ones coming back from ONR should mitigate that.

Dan

 

[roger1818]

Sorry they removed it.

Here is another article.https://delawarebusinessnow.com/2023/03/ameristarrail-pushes-for-amtrak-passenger-car-safety-meeting-with-federal-regulators/

Basically their concern is using the budd cars in speeds in excess of 90mph. Since in the north east corridor they go up to 125 their claim is that the cars are not safe. A stop gap measure would be to rebuild the Acela coaches and couple them together between the current power cars and use them instead of the budd cars.

If I'm not mistaken the Acela's have issues with corrosion and that's why they are being retired. Since they are based on the LRC's I doubt that they are much safer. But they are newer so at least they have that going for them.

This claim is a bit of a joke. Their arguments for the Amfleet being unsafe are:

1. “No rail passenger service in North American railroad history has operated passenger train cars so old, so fast," and
2. "While meeting current federal standards, is [sic] not as safe as the newest genreation [sic] of passenger cars."

Are they then going to say that operating trains above 150mph is unsafe because no train has ever operated at that speed in North America? Should automobiles that don't receive top marks in crash ratings in all categories be banned from public roads, because it isn't fair that people who can't afford to buy the latest and greatest cars aren't as "safe?"

Then the truth comes out when the company that is making these claims (AmeriStarRail) "wants to manage the Northeast Corridor for Amtrak and operate with all higher-speed Acela trains."

While there might be some truth to the claim, I would feel more comfortable with an independent analysis from an organization not looking to make money from this conclusion.

The thing is, Amtrak is planning to replace all of their Amfleet cars with Siemens trainsets. It is just going to take some time.

 

[Bordercollie]

This claim is a bit of a joke. Their arguments for the Amfleet being unsafe are:

1. “No rail passenger service in North American railroad history has operated passenger train cars so old, so fast," and
2. "While meeting current federal standards, is [sic] not as safe as the newest genreation [sic] of passenger cars."

Are they then going to say that operating trains above 150mph is unsafe because no train has ever operated at that speed in North America? Should automobiles that don't receive top marks in crash ratings in all categories be banned from public roads, because it isn't fair that people who can't afford to buy the latest and greatest cars aren't as "safe?"

Then the truth comes out when the company that is making these claims (AmeriStarRail) "wants to manage the Northeast Corridor for Amtrak and operate with all higher-speed Acela trains."

While there might be some truth to the claim, I would feel more comfortable with an independent analysis from an organization not looking to make money from this conclusion.

The thing is, Amtrak is planning to replace all of their Amfleet cars with Siemens trainsets. It is just going to take some time.

But what is the feasibility of combining two Acela trains together and having them hauled by an electric locomotive? Those cars would need a rebuild to continue in service for another 5 years.

 

[generalcanada]

Toronto, Canada and Global Breaking News – CP24

Most recent News News business news stories and video from CP24

www.cp24.com

I dont think this will change anything really but at least its being mentioned.
Is this about that proposal from alstom?

 

[innsertnamehere]

These motions are designed to put pressure on the Feds to select a proponent who has a High Speed element to their bid.

 

[roger1818]

Toronto, Canada and Global Breaking News – CP24

Most recent News News business news stories and video from CP24

www.cp24.com

I dont think this will change anything really but at least its being mentioned.
Is this about that proposal from alstom?

From the article: "The difference between high-frequency and high-speed trains is primarily speed:"

Two other primary differences are ticket price and number of stops. Optimally you would have both HSR and regional trains with the high speed trains running express between T-O-M and the slower, more affordable, regional trains would make more stops.

 

[cplchanb]

does anyone know when the next sets of the chargers will be arriving? when will they be put on the montreal toronto route? hoping for train 669 to be one by June!

 

[kEiThZ]

I don't know if it was posted already but the RFQ is up on the HFR website.

https://hfr-tgf.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/RFQ-HFR-DDQ-TGF-EN.pdf

 

[generalcanada]

has this been seen before?

 

[cplchanb]

has this been seen before?
View attachment 465579

i dont get why they need to have this many steps. Just issue the RFP, let whoever wants to bid bid and pick from that lot.
why do they need to do a pre qualifiers and then formal bid on the exact same requirements?
this just adds at least 3/4 of a year to the selection process. surely public works isnt that dumb that it it cant tell straight out whos a serious bid or not? .... then again
im not that confident in their competency....

 

[kEiThZ]

They are paying $20M to each qualified proponent to prepare their RFP. This is normal in massive multi-billion dollar projects where bids cost millions to prepare. To avoid having to pay out to a bunch of companies with no idea what they are doing or no chance of winning, it's best to force qualification where companies have to get together and create whole consortiums.

 

[cplchanb]

They are paying $20M to each qualified proponent to prepare their RFP. This is normal in massive multi-billion dollar projects where bids cost millions to prepare. To avoid having to pay out to a bunch of companies with no idea what they are doing or no chance of winning, it's best to force qualification where companies have to get together and create whole consortiums.

Is it standard practice to pay bidders such a princely amount? Why should we pay them to bid when the exclusivity of getting a billion dollar contract should be incentive enough? Right now big companies can do whatever they want. regardless if they get the bid they score this massive cash participation prize. If they're that big they ought to be working hard on their own dime to create a successful bid that won't just balloon the budget nor mysteriously gain 5 years of delays as soon as its signed.

When i prepare my fee proposals for prospective jobs I sure don't expect to be paid by the biddee to do it....

 

[crs1026]

When i prepare my fee proposals for prospective jobs I sure don't expect to be paid by the biddee to do it....

It is standard practice, and it is money very well spent. It raises the likelihood that there will be multiple (credible) bidders - which in turn encourages price discipline.

The effort to review and analyse all the information going into a bid on a project of this magnitude is huge. One doesn't just consider the length of a line and generate a quote based on some simple algorithm. If there are multiple bidders, the risk of doing all the work but losing the bid is a pretty big disincentive. Some may simply be unable to afford the bid preparation.

Whatever your business, you are in fact getting your clients to pay for the cost of your quote preparation, you just account for it differently.... ie it's folded into your overhead calculation somehow.

- Paul

 

[kEiThZ]

Is it standard practice to pay bidders such a princely amount?

For a deal that could end up being tens of billions of dollars? Yes it is. The defence industry follows similar practices for multi-billion dollar deals.

Why should we pay them to bid when the exclusivity of getting a billion dollar contract should be incentive enough?

Because that's not enough incentive, especially if bidders suspect there's home team favoritism going on. This compensates for the risk of racking up loss after loss due to protectionism. Should be noted that compensation for bid preparation is usually not profitable. It's designed to simply cover most costs that all bidders are expected to incur. Somebody wants to go off and do extra work to improve their odds, that's on them.

When i prepare my fee proposals for prospective jobs I sure don't expect to be paid by the biddee to do it....

Does your proposal take 100 person-years of highly skilled employment to prepare for submission?

 

[wopchop]

Is it standard practice to pay bidders such a princely amount? Why should we pay them to bid when the exclusivity of getting a billion dollar contract should be incentive enough? Right now big companies can do whatever they want. regardless if they get the bid they score this massive cash participation prize. If they're that big they ought to be working hard on their own dime to create a successful bid that won't just balloon the budget nor mysteriously gain 5 years of delays as soon as its signed.

When i prepare my fee proposals for prospective jobs I sure don't expect to be paid by the biddee to do it....

What prevents them from paying out $20MM participation prizes to contractors with no shot is the RFQ process. That is when you weed out the unqualified who would tank the job, and force collaboration (creation of consortiums) that should help deliver the job.
When the money involved in preparing a bid is so huge, if you didn't compensate the bidders you would see less bidders and therefore less price competition. That isn't good for the Owner.

Many contractors do in fact charge for estimates/consultations when they involve a significant amount of work. It depends on the project type and contract structure.