Trains.com

IDOT selects Siemens/Cummins for consortium locomotive purchase

7501 views
22 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    November 2013
  • 1,097 posts
IDOT selects Siemens/Cummins for consortium locomotive purchase
Posted by Buslist on Friday, December 20, 2013 2:53 PM
This surprise off Railway Age's news line yesterday.

The Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) has issued a Notice of Intent to Award to Siemens Rail Systems USA for approximately 35 high-performance diesel-electric locomotives for several Midwestern and West Coast states using funds from the U.S. Department of Transportation. IDOT is leading the multi-state locomotive procurement on behalf of the Departments of Transportation from Illinois, California, Michigan, Washington, and Missouri.
The Notice of Intent to Award means a potential vendor has been identified. A contract still needs to be awarded before the purchase can proceed.

The new locomotives will achieve a maximum speed of 125 mph and meet Federal Environmental Protection Agency Tier 4 emissions standards. They will be equipped with the Cummins QSK95 diesel engines, which Siemens is using for its U.S.-market diesel-electric locomotives, “resulting in one of the most energy-efficient, lightweight, smart, diesel-electric locomotives available today in North America,” Siemens said.

Siemens and Cummins announced their partnership on Dec. 3, 2013.

In 2012, IDOT was involved in a multi-state procurement of 130 next-generation bilevel railcars for high-performance service, an effort led by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). That effort resulted in the selection of Sumitomo/Nippon-Sharyo, which is building the railcars at its plant in Rochelle, Ill. The procurement includes 88 cars to be deployed on Midwest regional corridors. The Rochelle plant opened in 2012 and has created more than 250 jobs in Illinois.

Amtrak debuted the first 110-mph HrSR (higher-speed rail) service segment outside of the Northeast Corridor on the Chicago to Detroit Corridor in early 2012. Today, the corridor features an 80-mile segment of track where trains are running up to 110 mph. By 2015, nearly 80% of the corridor will see sustained speeds of 110 mph, with new high performance equipment.

Illinois debuted 110 mph service on a 15-mile segment of the Chicago-St. Louis corridor from Dwight to Pontiac in November 2012. IDOT is working with Union Pacific and FRA to ensure that Positive Train Control requirements and all required track and crossing improvements are completed in order to expand 110-mph service to about 75% of the corridor by 2017. In December 2012, FRA provided a Record of Decision on the entire Chicago-St. Louis corridor, allowing Illinois to begin in-depth corridor segment analysis and specific project analysis to move toward HrSR service on the other 25% of the corridor as soon as possible, including the Chicago-Joliet and Alton-St. Louis segments.

“We are extremely proud to have been selected as a rolling stock partner to help bring the next era of passenger rail service to Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, California, and Washington State,” said Michael Cahill, President of Siemens Rail Systems USA.
  • Member since
    November 2006
  • 30 posts
Posted by fordv10 on Friday, December 20, 2013 6:57 PM

IDOT should get there hands slapped. EMD which is owned by CAT should have got the order.Why should my tax dollars be going to a non US company!!!! Yes I live in thiis cess pool state of Illinois where CAT is headquartered and they should of got the contract. I have no ties to CAT.

  • Member since
    September 2011
  • 6,445 posts
Posted by MidlandMike on Friday, December 20, 2013 8:04 PM

The Siemens/Cummins engines were over a $million cheaper per unit and they will be produced in California.  IDOT picked an Illinois plant (Japanese consortium) to build the passenger cars.  IDOT was not put in charge of the multi-state project to give the all the work to in-state plants.

http://trn.trains.com/en/Railroad%20News/News%20Wire/2013/12/Illinois%20DOT%20announces%20intent%20to%20award%20diesel%20locomotive%20contract%20to%20Siemens.aspx

  • Member since
    August 2010
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 8,955 posts
Posted by Firelock76 on Sunday, December 22, 2013 8:48 PM

I've got to read these thread titles more carefully, I thought it said "IDIOT Selects..."

What the hell, it's late and I'm tired.

  • Member since
    December 2006
  • 1,879 posts
Posted by YoHo1975 on Thursday, December 26, 2013 5:21 PM

Those of us in or From Illinois will tell you that IDOT and IDIOT are synonyms.

  • Member since
    October 2013
  • 212 posts
Posted by McKey on Friday, December 27, 2013 4:18 AM

As far as reported earlier Siemens Mobility in U.S. actually uses mostly U.S. components in their vehicles. This means they are not made in Europe, China, other Asian countries or Africa, but in U.S.A. For a multinational company like Siemens they can bring their expertise, way of designing and manufacturing and quality standards in despite where the vehicles are manufactured.

As the vehicles are made of U.S. parts in U.S.A. As a European I'm wondering what some of you are actually afraid of?

  • Member since
    July 2004
  • 2,741 posts
Posted by Paul Milenkovic on Monday, December 30, 2013 3:41 PM

McKey

As the vehicles are made of U.S. parts in U.S.A. As a European I'm wondering what some of you are actually afraid of?

I am afraid of locomotives like the Krauss-Maffei Diesel hydraulic locomotives from the 1960's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krauss-Maffei_ML_4000_C'C'.  The Wikipedia article doesn't go into some of the details on the Locomotives Forum discussed here some time recently.

There must be an art to building a reliable Diesel for U.S. conditions as many U.S. manufacturers (Baldwin, FM, ALCo -- their later model Diesel engines were better, but they had a model that had serious problems) along with oversees manufacturers were not successful.  There was for a long time only one successful builder, EMD, until GE, by dint of "deep corporate pockets" and perserverance in the market caught up and arguably surpassed EMD.

If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,279 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Monday, December 30, 2013 4:58 PM

McKey

As the vehicles are made of U.S. parts in U.S.A. As a European I'm wondering what some of you are actually afraid of?

d

What US operating entities are afraid of in dealing with European railroad products it that Europeans do not understand or appreciate the the operational differences between the railroads of Europe and those of North America.  The operational differences are profound - show me the 20K ton coal train with DPU assistance traveling 2K miles from origin to destination in Europe.  North American carriers survive on freight for private owners and investors.  In Europe movement of freight is secondary to the movement of passengers - totally different operating environment.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Monday, December 30, 2013 5:06 PM

The diesel engine is American by Cummins, which has been in business nearly 100 years.  And this is a higher speed passenger engine, not a freight.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    October 2013
  • 212 posts
Posted by McKey on Tuesday, December 31, 2013 1:24 AM

I would not go into 1960s trial that did not work out for SP then. The need for all driving wheels being the exact same size has been trashed even in Europe since.

Indeed very much has changed in Europe since 1960s...fortunately. And GE and EMD are importing locomotives to Europe, every year. GEs here are known mostly for being modern and extremely reliable while the EMDs very backward and reliable designs.

Paul Milenkovic

McKey

As the vehicles are made of U.S. parts in U.S.A. As a European I'm wondering what some of you are actually afraid of?

I am afraid of locomotives like the Krauss-Maffei Diesel hydraulic locomotives from the 1960's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krauss-Maffei_ML_4000_C'C'.  The Wikipedia article doesn't go into some of the details on the Locomotives Forum discussed here some time recently.

  • Member since
    May 2013
  • 3,231 posts
Posted by NorthWest on Wednesday, January 1, 2014 12:42 PM

schlimm
The diesel engine is American by Cummins, which has been in business nearly 100 years.

Cummins powered a few switchers in the 1920s-1950s, usually below 44 tons.

  • Member since
    December 2006
  • 1,879 posts
Posted by YoHo1975 on Friday, January 3, 2014 2:29 PM

I've travelled by Car Ferry being pushed along by extremely reliable Cummins Diesels, but they have struggled in the locomotive market.

I'm biased, I got a tour of the Sacramento Siemens plant by the guy in charge as they were building the new Amtrak units. He and they know what they are doing. And for the record, it was Siemens that made AC driven Freight locomotives a reality for EMD. So to say that they in general don't understand the US market is kind of missing the forest for the trees. 

The only question here is whether the QSK itself and the electronics mated to it are up to the task. 

  • Member since
    July 2004
  • 2,741 posts
Posted by Paul Milenkovic on Sunday, January 5, 2014 7:38 PM

YoHo1975

I've travelled by Car Ferry being pushed along by extremely reliable Cummins Diesels, but they have struggled in the locomotive market.

I'm biased, I got a tour of the Sacramento Siemens plant by the guy in charge as they were building the new Amtrak units. He and they know what they are doing. And for the record, it was Siemens that made AC driven Freight locomotives a reality for EMD. So to say that they in general don't understand the US market is kind of missing the forest for the trees. 

The only question here is whether the QSK itself and the electronics mated to it are up to the task. 

I have never expressed a concern about "buy American", U.S. content, or whether the Siemens locomotives employ workers on the correct side of the pond.  Let's get a market for passenger trains in the U.S. and then worry about that issue.

I have never, ever suggested that Siemens doesn't understand the U.S. market, so I don't know which forest I am missing when I describe some trees.

I have never suggested that Siemens and their partner Cummins are lacking in corporate history or experience building things for the rialroad industry.

My concern is with the railroad environment combined with U.S. maintenance practices or with the expectation in the U.S. with the required level of maintenance.  Even Talgo comes with a maintenance contract, which is an item of contention why a pair of Talgo train sets are parked in a warehouse in Milwaukee right now.

Even EMD hit a snag, they tell me, in their attempted switch to the 4-cycle H-engine, which they have backed off from and reverted to 710-based designs.

If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?

  • Member since
    October 2011
  • 165 posts
Posted by CPM500 on Tuesday, January 7, 2014 11:12 AM

Doesn't every technology start out as 'new and untested' ?

The key to the new locos success will be how the field service function  is set up. That would be training, tech support and warranty administration.

Having multiple major suppliers could make for some problems, unless Siemens organizes the field service function correctly.

CPM500

  • Member since
    November 2003
  • From: Rhode Island
  • 2,289 posts
Posted by carnej1 on Tuesday, January 7, 2014 11:24 AM

BaltACD

McKey

As the vehicles are made of U.S. parts in U.S.A. As a European I'm wondering what some of you are actually afraid of?

d

What US operating entities are afraid of in dealing with European railroad products it that Europeans do not understand or appreciate the the operational differences between the railroads of Europe and those of North America.  The operational differences are profound - show me the 20K ton coal train with DPU assistance traveling 2K miles from origin to destination in Europe.  North American carriers survive on freight for private owners and investors.  In Europe movement of freight is secondary to the movement of passengers - totally different operating environment.

 In other words you're predicting that Metra, etc. will experience serious difficulties with the coal trains they operate due to selecting European designed equipment?

"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,279 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Tuesday, January 7, 2014 12:57 PM

carnej1

BaltACD

McKey

As the vehicles are made of U.S. parts in U.S.A. As a European I'm wondering what some of you are actually afraid of?

d

What US operating entities are afraid of in dealing with European railroad products it that Europeans do not understand or appreciate the the operational differences between the railroads of Europe and those of North America.  The operational differences are profound - show me the 20K ton coal train with DPU assistance traveling 2K miles from origin to destination in Europe.  North American carriers survive on freight for private owners and investors.  In Europe movement of freight is secondary to the movement of passengers - totally different operating environment.

 In other words you're predicting that Metra, etc. will experience serious difficulties with the coal trains they operate due to selecting European designed equipment?

European equipment on Metra routes will operating in concert with the 20K Ton coal trains and the 10,000 foot Intermodal and Auto trains and all the other trains that operate on US railroads.  Remember Metra is a tennent on most of the lines they operate on radiating from Chicago.

Murphy operates in US railroads, just as it was shown Murphy operates trains in Spain.  US overspeed derailment, 7 dead.  Spanish overspeed derailment 78 dead. Apples & Oranges - maybe, maybe not!

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    November 2003
  • From: Rhode Island
  • 2,289 posts
Posted by carnej1 on Wednesday, January 8, 2014 11:19 AM

BaltACD

carnej1

BaltACD

McKey

As the vehicles are made of U.S. parts in U.S.A. As a European I'm wondering what some of you are actually afraid of?

d

What US operating entities are afraid of in dealing with European railroad products it that Europeans do not understand or appreciate the the operational differences between the railroads of Europe and those of North America.  The operational differences are profound - show me the 20K ton coal train with DPU assistance traveling 2K miles from origin to destination in Europe.  North American carriers survive on freight for private owners and investors.  In Europe movement of freight is secondary to the movement of passengers - totally different operating environment.

 In other words you're predicting that Metra, etc. will experience serious difficulties with the coal trains they operate due to selecting European designed equipment?

European equipment on Metra routes will operating in concert with the 20K Ton coal trains and the 10,000 foot Intermodal and Auto trains and all the other trains that operate on US railroads.  Remember Metra is a tennent on most of the lines they operate on radiating from Chicago.

Murphy operates in US railroads, just as it was shown Murphy operates trains in Spain.  US overspeed derailment, 7 dead.  Spanish overspeed derailment 78 dead. Apples & Oranges - maybe, maybe not!

The majority of passenger equipment built and operated in the U.S and Canada in recent years is of foreign (European or Asian) design. The coaches in the Metro North derailment you mention were products of a Canadian firm (Bombardier) whose railroad equipment division is a former European company (Alstom). I don't  know if you are saying the GE locomotive contributed to the survivability of the crash but it was on the tail end of the train so I'm unclear that it really was a major factor in the accident.

 All passenger equipment operating in the US that shares trackage with freight equipment has to conform to FRA collision survival regulations which are far stricter than European requirements and for good reason.

I would be interested to see empirical evidence that older U.S designed equipment in commuter and Amtrak service is more crash worthy than newer foreign designed cars..

 

"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock

  • Member since
    October 2011
  • 165 posts
Posted by CPM500 on Wednesday, January 8, 2014 11:32 AM

No relation between Bombardier & ALSTOM. The MN coaches actually owe their heritage to a P-S design.

CPM500

 

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,279 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Wednesday, January 8, 2014 4:33 PM

carnej1

 

The majority of passenger equipment built and operated in the U.S and Canada in recent years is of foreign (European or Asian) design. The coaches in the Metro North derailment you mention were products of a Canadian firm (Bombardier) whose railroad equipment division is a former European company (Alstom). I don't  know if you are saying the GE locomotive contributed to the survivability of the crash but it was on the tail end of the train so I'm unclear that it really was a major factor in the accident.

 All passenger equipment operating in the US that shares trackage with freight equipment has to conform to FRA collision survival regulations which are far stricter than European requirements and for good reason.

I would be interested to see empirical evidence that older U.S designed equipment in commuter and Amtrak service is more crash worthy than newer foreign designed cars..

 

So long as equipment is designed to FRA standards - I don't care.  However, there is a contingent that inhabits this forum that believes FRA standards are unnecessary and just add weight and foreign designs shoud run in North America without complying to such standards.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    October 2013
  • 212 posts
Posted by McKey on Saturday, January 11, 2014 8:05 AM

Well, who could disagree using local FRA standards?

And, the European crash norms (for EU member countries) were just revised in 2012 making lots of enormously bulky looking new rolling stock, so I think current generation rolling stock are pretty well protected even in Europe.

BaltACD

So long as equipment is designed to FRA standards - I don't care.  However, there is a contingent that inhabits this forum that believes FRA standards are unnecessary and just add weight and foreign designs shoud run in North America without complying to such standards.

  • Member since
    November 2005
  • From: Hope, AR
  • 2,061 posts
Posted by narig01 on Saturday, January 11, 2014 11:45 PM
On crash survivability. Remember the Metro North derailment in May. Kawasaki built M-8 's. The carbodies sustained a large amount of damage without killing anybody. 3 people hospitalized and a total of 72 injured.
Yes ugly. Wrecks usually are. The cars are built to FRA standards. The standards that Alsthom had so much trouble with in building the Acela 's.

Rgds IGN
  • Member since
    October 2013
  • 212 posts
Posted by McKey on Sunday, January 12, 2014 8:57 AM

This is so much in corporate culture, and that is why I like Siemens winning the 80 + 95 unit Vectron electric+diesel order for Finnish operator VR in the Nordic just last week. Vectron is a similar unit to ACS64 for U.S. markets. Looking at Siemens Mobility built rolling stock in Innotrans 2012 the standards of building were quite high compared with the many other players in competition, with only slightly higher price tag.

narig01
On crash survivability. Remember the Metro North derailment in May. Kawasaki built M-8 's. The carbodies sustained a large amount of damage without killing anybody. 3 people hospitalized and a total of 72 injured.
Yes ugly. Wrecks usually are. The cars are built to FRA standards. The standards that Alsthom had so much trouble with in building the Acela 's.

Rgds IGN

The other year one of the very first Eurosprinters (predecessor of Vectron/ACS64) was part in one of the train crashes in Spain, with no external damage to the locomotive body appearing. Here is a picture of one of the similar units of Renfe. 

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Sunday, January 12, 2014 9:45 AM

The Spanish train was traveling at 121 mph, 50% faster than the MNRR train at 82 mph.  Additionally, the trailing cars of the Spanish train hit a stationary object (wall) as well.  

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy