Creating the Nation s First Standardized Rail Car Specification

Transcription

1 Creating the Nation s First Standardized Rail Car Specification The Next-Generation Equipment Committee and the Future of Intercity Rail Passenger Equipment Gregory Gagarin, P.E. Amtrak Philadelphia, PA Robert C. Highfill, P.E. Jacobs Engineering Walnut Creek, CA Stanton C. Hunter Caltrans Division of Rail Sacramento, CA ABSTRACT The nation has entered a new age of rail equipment design and manufacture with the creation of a series of standardized technical specifications for intercity passenger rail rolling stock for primary use in corridorstyle service. These specifications were created through a complex and open process that included participation from individuals representing all constituents of the intercity rail passenger community, and were completed in a remarkably short period of time. Section 305 of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA) mandated the creation of a Next-Generation Corridor Equipment Pool Committee (known as NGEC) to oversee the development of standardized specifications for new intercity rail passenger cars and locomotives. Federal funding programs such as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) and the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Act require that new rail rolling stock acquisitions for intercity corridor services conform to these standard specifications. The NGEC was established in January Voting members of the NGEC Executive Board include representatives of 11 state Departments of Transportation (DOTs), the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), and Amtrak. The NGEC established a technical subcommittee and tasked it with the development and completion of the specifications. The NGEC chose the C21 bi-level intercity car specification under joint development by Amtrak and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to be the basis for the PRIIA 305 bi-level specification. The C21 specification was evaluated by a multidisciplinary team of over 150 representatives from various states, Amtrak, the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), the Association of American Railroads (AAR), the rail car supply and manufacturing industry, consultants, and the FRA. This team applied their depth of skills to the refinement of the specification and, through their efforts, such innovative technologies as Crash Energy Management (CEM) were added to the document. On August 31, 2010, the NGEC Executive Board unanimously approved the bi-level specification as the first nationwide PRIIA approved passenger rail car specification. Since approval of the bi-level specification, the NGEC has approved specifications for single-level standalone cars and diesel-electric passenger locomotives. The development of standardized rail passenger specifications, and the rolling stock that is built to those specifications, will greatly benefit equipment owners, operators, and railcar builders and suppliers by providing a level of consistency of concept, design, performance and contract provision that has historically been elusive in the industry. Individual owners typically perform unique procurements of equipment built to specifications that conform to particular applications. The PRIIA 305 standardization process is intended to foster open communication amongst numerous stakeholders to create the best rolling stock for many diverse operational environments and circumstances. The Origin of the PRIIA Standardization Process Development of the first nationwide standardized bilevel specification starts with the passage of the Passenger 1

2 Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, known as PRIIA. Enacted on October 16, 2008, by Federal Law Division B, PRIIA is a large and comprehensive package of legislation covering a wide spectrum of rail safety, capital funding, standardization of cost accounting principles, and rolling stock. Section 305 of PRIIA created the Next-Generation Corridor Equipment Pool Committee (known as NGEC) to design, develop specifications for, and procure standardized nextgeneration corridor equipment. Consisting of a scant 332 words, this provision of PRIIA initiated an aggressive program of rolling stock specification development that will guide the design and manufacture of intercity passenger rail equipment for years to come. On April 16, 2009, President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood announced a new vision for developing highspeed passenger rail in America. They called for a collaborative effort by the federal government, states, railroads, and other key stakeholders to help transform America s transportation system through the creation of a national network of high-speed rail corridors. To achieve this vision, the FRA launched the HSIPR program in June This program details the requirements and procedures needed to acquire funding available under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). The HSIPR program supports a series of strategic transportation goals: building a foundation for economic competitiveness; ensuring safe and efficient transportation choices; promoting energy efficiency and environmental quality; and supporting interconnected livable communities. In the near-term, the program is intended to aid in economic recovery efforts and lay the foundation for a national high-speed intercity passenger rail network through planning studies and targeted investments in existing intercity passenger rail infrastructure, equipment, and intermodal connections. Long-term HSIPR program funding is envisioned to build an efficient, high-speed intercity passenger rail network, connecting major population centers 100 to 600 miles apart. It was ARRA and HSIPR that took the PRIIA Section 305 NGEC program from the academic to the immediately practical. These programs both require that intercity rail passenger equipment acquired with HSIPR and ARRA grant funds must be consistent with the PRIIA Section 305 committee specifications. The specification development process was now backed by a funding mechanism to take the specifications and advance them into actual rolling stock. The timing of the funding programs reinforced to the NGEC the urgency of completing specifications for applicants for Federal funds to use for much-needed rolling stock. The work of the NGEC is considered critical to rebuilding the rail manufacturing industry in the U.S. As FRA Administrator Joe Szabo stated so aptly at the recent annual meeting of the NGEC, What we seek is the development of a domestic rail car manufacturing industry that covers the entire spectrum from design, to the manufacture of components and subcomponents, to assembly, and repair. We see this industry as multiple companies competing to build what is essentially the same equipment. We want commonality of design and standardization of components and parts that will permit multiple firms to build essentially the same, interoperable equipment and its components. Formation of the Next-Generation Equipment Committee To accomplish the requirements of Section 305 of PRIIA, Amtrak was mandated to establish a Next- Generation Corridor Equipment Pool Committee, comprised of representatives of Amtrak, the Federal Railroad Administration, host freight railroad companies, passenger railroad equipment manufacturers, interested states, and, as appropriate, other passenger railroad operators. The purpose of the Committee shall be to design, develop specifications for, and procure standardized next-generation corridor equipment. The authorizing legislation also provided that the committee may determine the number of different types of equipment, taking into account variations in operational needs and corridor infrastructure. On January 14, 2010, the By-Laws and Operating Procedures for the NGEC were approved. During the course of the initial meeting, the Committee was constituted, formed an Executive Board, elected officers, appointed members, and developed and approved a work plan with a very aggressive schedule and timeline. The elected officers of the Section 305 NGEC Executive Board as initially constituted are: Chairman: William Bronte, California DOT Vice-Chair: Mario Bergeron, Amtrak Treasurer: DJ Stadtler, Amtrak Secretary: Rodney Massman, Missouri DOT 2

3 Voting members of the Executive Board, including the officers, represent eleven state Departments of Transportation (California, Georgia, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Washington and Wisconsin), the FRA, and Amtrak. At the initial meeting and in accordance with the By- Laws the Executive Board established two subcommittees: the Technical Subcommittee (TSC) and the Finance Subcommittee. The Committee also determined the types of equipment required, including bilevel, single-level and trainset car specifications, and diesel-electric locomotive specifications to support operations up to 125 MPH. Creation of the Technical Subcommittee The Technical Subcommittee (TSC) was created by the NGEC Executive Board to develop and evaluate passenger rail car and subsystem designs and technologies, and establish performance and safety criteria standards. Specifically, the TSC was tasked to: Develop a specification that addresses the specific design objectives and requirements and confirms compliance with all PRIIA mandates. Summarize the bi-level specification in a manner that provides the information necessary for the NGEC to determine whether the specification complies with all requirements and is ready for acceptance. Document the methodology by which the specification was developed, reviewed, edited and approved by the TSC and the document the process and subcommittee makeup. The task of creating and approving the specifications for the types of equipment identified in a short timeframe was essential to the success of the NGEC. The TSC was to generate for Board approval a bi-level specification by July This gave the NGEC a sense of immediacy, and as a result the NGEC looked to specifications that were at a high degree of completion and refinement, and that were intended for use by states or Amtrak to fill equipment needs in the near future based on available funding, ridership growth and fleet planning. Caltrans and Amtrak have both identified bi-level cars as highpriority acquisitions for fleet expansion over the next several years to meet capacity demands and fleet management requirements, and the third-generation bilevel car specification under joint development by Caltrans and Amtrak at the time was close to completion. Subsequent discussions and meetings of the TSC developed additional objectives for the specification and the development process, including: Coordination with a national rail equipment fleet strategy. Modularity and ease of configuration changes to accommodate the needs of individual states and other operators. Flexible deployment through standardization of clearances and environmental conditions. Identification of maximum seating capacity, operating speeds and track class/geometry requirements. Minimize station dwell times and the time and costs of turning trains at terminals (through the use of push-pull operation), and enable mid-route consist size changes. Maximize reliability and ease of maintenance while ensuring equipment compatibility. Compliance with safety objectives, including crashworthiness, energy absorption, structural strength, and emergency egress. History of the Bi-Level Intercity Corridor Car The bi-level corridor car is a well-established equipment type Amtrak and Caltrans have been successfully operating a fleet of intercity bi-level cars in corridor service throughout California since The bi-level California Car and Surfliner fleets were an evolutionary design derived from Amtrak s long-distance Superliner cars, with numerous design changes that made the California Cars and Surfliners more suitable to the demands found in a corridor service environment. 3

4 Figure 1. Surfliner Cab-Baggage Car illustrating the bi-level conceptual layout and control cab for push-pull operation. The concept for the bi-level intercity corridor car originated with the passage of Propositions 108 and 116 in California in These propositions provided close to $3 billion for the development of urban, commuter and intercity rail and transit projects in California. Proposition 116 directed Caltrans to develop specifications for standard, state-of-the-art passenger cars and locomotives to be used throughout California. The legislation requirements included a mandate for standardization and interchangeability of cars, systems, and components to reduce maintenance and spare parts costs. The first Caltrans fleet acquisition consisted of nine F59PHI locomotives built by Electro-Motive Division of General Motors (EMD) and 66 bi-level California Cars built by Morrison Knudsen in four configurations: coach, cab control coach, coach-baggage, and food service. Emphasis was placed on compatibility with Amtrak equipment standards, operations, maintenance and material control, since the California Cars were designed and built for deployment on the three State-supported intercity routes operated by Amtrak under contract to Caltrans. Amtrak maintains the California Cars and Surfliners at two principal facilities - Oakland and Los Angeles. Though built for use in California the design philosophy was specifically focused on creating a new car type for use on other corridors as well. The California Car specification was based on a number of design concepts: The design was developed to provide comfortable, high-capacity rolling stock that facilitated efficient loading and unloading, and numerous passenger amenities oriented towards corridor-style service. A bi-level design was chosen for compatibility with Amtrak s Superliner cars, and to take advantage of low-level boarding at station platforms without requiring traps, stepboxes or high-level platforms. Pass-through from one car to the next is at upper floor height, inches ATOR. Passenger entry and exit is on the lower level, with a height of 18 inches ATOR (same as Superliners). The full bi-level design combined with the car s16 foot 2 inch overall height created a roomy interior with adequate space for luggage storage and comfortable headroom on both upper and lower levels. Two vestibules, each equipped with trainlinecontrolled power side doors, permitted multiple entry points that could be controlled by one crewmember. Two straight staircases allowed passengers easy access to the upper level of the train, where most seating and car-to-car passthrough is located. Seating and restroom facilities for mobility-impaired passengers are on the lower level. This efficient loading and unloading system decreased station dwell times and overall end-to-end running times, and allowed for high-volume passenger ingress and egress without increasing on-board crew size. The California Cars were designed to be compatible with current Amtrak equipment, in terms of mechanical, electrical and pneumatic connections. Adherence to existing Amtrak standards for Superliner equipment, including clearances, track geometry, trainline connections and all required functional compatibility allowed the California Cars to operate in mixed train consists with Superliners and ex-santa Fe highlevel cars, as well as a variety of Amtrak-owned locomotives. This enabled the cars to be deployed on routes where Superliners are approved to operate (except the Northeast Corridor, due to clearance restrictions under the high-voltage catenary). Cab control cars were designed for locomotive control to enable pushpull operation for operational efficiency and enhanced equipment utilization. The design focused on ease of cleaning and maintenance, access to equipment, conformity to Amtrak standard maintenance intervals, and human factors. Major systems, components and parts were designed to be as interchangeable as possible, with low cost and ease of maintenance becoming significant measurables during the design evaluation process. In 1998 the bi-level corridor car design was advanced to a second generation by Amtrak through its Surfliner car procurement. Built by Alstom Transportation in Hornell, NY, between 1998 and 2002, the Surfliners used the California Car as a design base with numerous incremental improvements for passenger amenities, maintainability and operations, while adhering to the same design considerations and objectives used to build the California Cars. Major improvements included reconfiguration of the interior to add a toilet room on the upper level, different system technologies for toilets and side door operators, refinements to the trucks and suspension, and addition of passenger amenities such as convenient electrical outlets at every seat. The Surfliners are functionally and operationally compatible with Superliners and California Cars. Combining the California Car fleet with Amtrak s purchase of 40 Surfliners and California s acquisition of an additional 22 4

5 Surfliner cars, the total bi-level corridor fleet is now at 128 cars, deployed on the Pacific Surfliner, San Joaquin and Capitol Corridor routes. The ease by which the Surfliner cars were functionally and operationally integrated into existing fleets of California Cars and Superliners is an example of the benefits of recognizing the importance of standardization when specifying and designing new rail equipment. This integration created the basis of a number of the design prerequisites that were incorporated into the third-generation of the bi-level corridor car: the C21 car. Starting With the C21 Specification Demand for revenue space on the three California intercity corridors has increased dramatically over the last few years, with 49% ridership growth overall in the period of The Capitol Corridor has experienced an astounding 88% ridership growth during those years. The last major bi-level fleet expansion occurred in 2001 when Amtrak and Caltrans acquired the 62 Surfliner cars. Recognizing the strong demand for revenue space in California and other corridors nationwide, Caltrans and Amtrak began a joint initiative to take the bi-level car design to a third generation through detailed analysis of the existing car designs. Changes were made based on component and system performance, input from employees and customers, evolving technology and changes to regulations. Emphasis was placed on making the new equipment deployable on a truly nationwide basis in terms of environmental conditions. This process was started in 2006 when $125 million was approved in California s Proposition 1B for intercity rail rolling stock. Numerous staff members from Amtrak s Rolling Stock Engineering and Caltrans Office of Rail Equipment joined forces to perform analyze the existing bi-level car designs, identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the existing equipment. Amtrak employees in the Mechanical, Transportation and On-Board Services departments in Los Angeles, Sacramento and Oakland were surveyed for their input on the designs of the California Cars and Surfliners, seeking comments on the maintainability, functionality and ease of operation of the various car types. This led to many specification refinements, and further design evaluation included development of computer modeling of the conceptual designs, construction of full-scale mockups, and outreach workshops for public feedback. Representatives of stakeholder groups, the ADA community, and the public were invited to evaluate the proposed designs. The C21 specification utilized many well-established industry standards for design and performance of subsystems, materials and components, such as those developed by APTA, AAR, and industry trade groups. The philosophy was to use as many existing standards as possible. The 90% complete specification was given a thorough and objective review by a variety of technical consultants under contract to Caltrans, who provided additional content and recommendations for clarification. The resulting specification was nicknamed the Corridor Car for the 21st Century or C21 Car. By December 31, 2009, the C21 specification was 95% complete, and subsequently was identified as a candidate for use by the NGEC as the basis for the bilevel specification development and approval due to its advanced level of completion and the need for the NGEC to bring a specification to approval in a highly compressed timeframe. Operational Considerations for the Bi-level Car With the adoption of the C21 specification as the basis for the PRIIA bi-level car, a number of criteria were developed as guidelines for the evaluation of the C21 specification, and the subsequent completion of the PRIIA bi-level document. The primary consideration of the PRIIA 305 bi-level specification was the adequacy of the specification in addressing the operational considerations needed to procure, design and build a fleet of intercity cars that will be: Designed for use without restriction under a wide spectrum of environmental and physical conditions found throughout the United States. Specified in configurations and containing features to allow potential users of these cars to create new fleets of equipment for establishment of new services, replacement of existing equipment, or addition of new cars to existing fleets without major impact. Designed and built to meet the needs of the traveling public, the operations and maintenance providers and the passenger rail agencies by creating attractive, safe equipment that is reliable, cost-effective, maintainable, easy to operate and durable. Operationally and functionally compatible with existing bi-level cars. Early in the process, the TSC conducted a survey of potential users of this equipment to determine what, if any, operational restrictions may have an effect on the development of this Specification. The basis for the clearance analysis was Amtrak s standard bi-level 5

6 clearance diagram (drawing B , rev 1), which delineates the static and dynamic envelope for the bi-level cars currently in use on Amtrak-provided services (Superliners, California Cars and Surfliners). The PRIIA 305 bi-level car, as specified, is not intended for use in services that utilize high-level platforms (at 48 inches ATOR) for all or some of their stations, as these platforms are not compatible with the lower-level boarding system of the bi-level cars. However, the cars will otherwise be deployable without restriction anywhere that Superliners are currently operated, as all rooftop appliances will be installed in accordance with the specified Amtrak bi-level clearance diagram. This will permit operation of the bilevel cars within the most restrictive clearance locations encountered by Amtrak s bi-level fleet, including Chicago Union Station and Washington Union Terminal (where clearance under the electrified catenary is the most critical). The PRIIA 305 cars must be designed and built so that they can be integrated into an existing fleet of bi-level cars with minimal impact on the existing fleet, as well as to create a stand-alone fleet of cars for the purposes of starting new services, replacement of existing fleets and placement of complete sets of new equipment into service. Some of the issues addressed by the TSC during the meetings and conference calls were: Are all necessary configurations and special purpose cars included in the specification so that users can order all the car types they may need for new services, additional frequencies and fleet expansions? The TSC Goes to Work Starting on March 4, 2010, the TSC began a series of weekly conference calls to begin work on the bi-level specification. These calls laid out the framework for the specification development, the aggressive timeline that was necessary for specification approval, and the composition of the TSC. Details of the various car types and needs of individual states were discussed during these calls, and this led the TSC to conduct a survey of all potential State users to determine preferences and requirements for vehicle type, restrictions, amenities and potential timeframes for equipment acquisitions. The TSC determined that the only way to meet the aggressive deadline for the bi-level specification was to break the work into subgroups that could work in parallel. Seven subgroups were formed and team leaders were appointed for each. The seven subgroups focused on locomotives, passenger cars, structural, mechanical, electrical, vehicletrack interaction (VTI), and interiors. Participation in the subgroups was open to all who were interested. Will these cars be operable without restriction in the United States (except locations with restricted clearances and high-level platforms)? Has the TSC identified all locations and/or conditions that restrict, affect or prevent the operation of these cars, based on feedback received from the States? What is the proposed resolution for these locations and/or conditions? Does the specification identify all environmental and operational requirements necessary to assure the car s performance as specified throughout the United States? Will this specification create a fleet of PRIIA cars that can be operable either as a new fleet, or be integrated into an existing fleet of cars? Are the cars functionally compatible with existing fleets of bi-level cars and intercity locomotives conforming to the goal of national standardization but still allowing innovation and evolution of design? Will there be an effect on existing fleets of bilevel cars when the PRIIA cars are delivered and commissioned into service? The TSC held its first face-to-face meeting in Chicago on April 22, Attendance was well over 150 representatives from all stakeholder groups in the NGEC community. The participants were invited to join the subgroup of their choice. Representatives from states, Amtrak, the FRA, car builders, consultants, and major sub-system suppliers then began to gather in discrete locations in the same auditorium with each of the subgroup leaders. Representatives from the railcar supply industry provided feedback to the subgroups about what was technologically achievable and commercially viable. The seven subgroups were given specific goals, including making a list of all the topics and characteristics to be addressed, their order of prioritization, and their feasibility. These lists were generated in real time in brainstorming sessions using flip charts. After the lists were compiled, they were reviewed by each subgroup. Once the subgroup had worked together for several hours, the leader gave a presentation. It was recognized that the activities for the development of the specification would need to be coordinated among the subgroup leaders. Using these refined lists and the C21 specification as a baseline document, the subgroups began to rework the chapters relevant to their area of expertise. As the specification matured, it was the job of the subgroup 6

7 leaders to coordinate functional integration between the 23 chapters and assign the appropriate groups to coordinate the development of the final specification language. A number of areas of the C21 specification were highlighted for revision, including the inclusion of innovative crashworthiness technology and the elimination of specific components by manufacturer and part number. As built, the California Cars and Surfliners did not include crash energy management (CEM) in their design, as that system of structural design had not yet been developed when those car types were designed and built. The California Cars and Surfliners were designed and built in full compliance with FRA requirements for structural strength in effect at the time the cars were delivered. Subsequent events occurring after delivery of the Surfliners created an environment where CEM was being developed and considered for inclusion to increase crashworthiness in the event of a train-to-train collision and reducing the risk of loss of occupant volume by installing predictive crush elements in the carbody structure that would produce controlled deformation in non-occupied sacrificial crush zones. The FRA, working in conjunction with the Volpe Center and the Transportation Test Center Inc. in Pueblo, CO, (TTCI) developed CEM carbody strategies that would mitigate potential injuries and fatalities in train-to-train collisions through a series of energy absorbing carbody elements such as pushback couplers, movable end frame structures and compressive buckling tubes. The first production vehicles to feature this innovative technology were the new commuter cars being built for Metrolink in Los Angeles by Hyundai Rotem USA. Early in the review process for the C21 specification, the structures subgroup, led by Eloy Martinez, identified the need to incorporate CEM as an essential safety improvement over the existing carshell design. The structures subgroup, working in conjunction with Caltrans and Amtrak, developed a CEM system that was based on specifying the energy absorption of an individual car in a train, as opposed to the energy absorption of a train consist as a group of coupled cars, as had been developed for the Metrolink equipment. The CEM system as specified in the bi-level specification is specifically intended to allow an individual car with CEM to be operated in a consist of cars that may or may not have CEM, so that each car performs individually but the overall crash performance of the train consist is improved. The inclusion of CEM on a PRIIA car will not reduce the structural integrity of the non-cem cars. The CEM system as specified was written to minimize impact to interior space and configuration, and to utilize crushable space such as air distribution system ducting and trash lockers as CEM crush space, reducing the functional impact to the tight interior space constraints of the car type. This skillful refinement of the Metrolink-based CEM design for application to a different car type, fleet and operational environment allowed the TSC to adopt CEM as a base carshell structural design for the new NGEC bi-level cars without requiring an expensive and potentially infeasible redesign and retrofit of the existing bi-level equipment, allowing the owners of the existing equipment to accept the new design with minimal impact on operations. Numerous other comments received from the subgroups were focused on specific components identified by manufacturer and part number in the C21 specification. The rationale for this component specificity was commonality and interchangeability with existing parts on the California Cars and/or Surfliners, for consistency in operation, maintenance and inventory. Various subgroups, and the rail equipment supply industry in particular, thought that this component specificity would serve to stifle competition and innovation, and would bind the carbuilders to suppliers and parts that they may not choose to use given their preferences. Another consideration raised was that specifying the component by number rather than by performance requirement may shift responsibility for the performance of the specified part from the carbuilder to the customer. These discussions surrounding the identification of parts has raised interesting considerations as to how the NGEC will be able to implement the concept of standardization while simultaneously promoting a competitive environment and development of innovative and evolutionary design within the rail car supply industry. The remainder of the comments received from the subgroups was oriented towards clarifying language, resolving potential inconsistencies, or recommendations for expanding the ability of individual customers to select specific types of components or technology to conform to their unique operational requirements. In all, 427 comments were received from the subgroups, and all but 28 were adopted outright or with amendment for clarity. Recommendations that were accepted were compiled for incorporation into the specification. The rejected recommendations were returned to the subgroup leaders for final review and concurrence. An appeal process was developed to give the rejected comments one more review in front of the TSC. At the completion of the process, all 7

8 comments were forwarded to Camren Cordell, technical writer for PB and interim manager of specification revision control, for incorporation into the final specification. The specification was now ready for final approval by the TSC. The completed PRIIA bi-level specification, assigned the number by the TSC, was posted on the NGEC website for final review prior to the TSC s second face-to-face meeting, held in Chicago on July 29, After completion of the appeal process for rejected comments, the draft bi-level specification was unanimously approved at the July meeting of the TSC, a remarkably short three months and seven days after the first face-to-face meeting in Chicago on April 22 and less than five months from the TSC s first conference call on March 4, The process was remarkably short and efficient. Executive Board Review of the Specification The specification now moved from the TSC to the full NGEC Executive Board for review. During the specification development, a requirements document was prepared by the NGEC that would establish the basis for the NGEC s evaluation of the proposed bi-level specification, as well as lay out the requirements for the specification (and the process by which the specification was completed) in a separate and parallel path to the specification development and review by the TSC. This provided a degree of check-and-balance to make sure that the specification truly met the stated needs and mandates of the NGEC. The process by which the bi-level specification was developed, reviewed and approved in preparation for submittal to the Executive Board is almost as important a component of the NGEC s mandate and mission as is the specification that the Board will approve. The adequacy of the specification is determined by its technical merit as well as by the soundness of the process by which it was created. The makeup of the NGEC and the TSC, the methodology by which a specification was developed, reviewed, edited and approved by the TSC, and the documentation of the process provided the Executive Committee with means by which it determined if the specification was developed using sound procedures. This also created a lasting record of the way the specification was written and finalized. To achieve these goals the Board s specification evaluation process included documentation and review of the process itself, which included: Who was involved in the development and approval of the Specification, and who did they represent? What organizations were the major participants and what role did they play? What was the process for development, review and approval of the Specification? How were comments evaluated? Was the Specification approved by consensus vote? Many design requirements go into a specification of this size and complexity, whether through identification of specific system design technology or through identification of performance-based system requirements. A review panel was established to evaluate the bi-level specification, focusing on the specification s compliance with the Committee s mandates and stated objectives as well as additional requirements such as compliance with regulations regarding safety, accessibility and operations. The review panel assessed the specifications that were developed using the following criteria: Does the specification meet the safety objectives of the PRIIA 305 Committee, the FRA, Amtrak and the States? Does the specification meet requirements for maximum operating speed, braking, track geometry, cant deficiency and others? What is the revenue seating capacity of the proposed car types? How does this compare to similar cars now in service? Are the cars compliant with the applicable provisions of ADA? Do the cars as specified have the amenities that passengers request most often? How do the passenger and crew amenities on these cars compare to those found on existing rail equipment? Will the design of the cars allow for individual variations that individual states may need for their operations? Do the cars use interior space efficiently, providing a balance between the need for revenue seating and the other uses of space such as luggage storage, trash and recycling, bicycle storage, etc? Does the specification contain objectives for the reliability and maintainability of the cars? Are 8

9 the reliability and maintainability provisions measurable and obtainable? Does the specification contain adequate provisions for design verification testing, as well as quality assurance testing? Are there adequate provisions in the specification for customer participation in the design review, production inspection and acceptance of the new cars? Does the specification promote environmentally sustainable initiatives, such as energy efficiency, waste reduction and recycling, either as a feature of the vehicle design, or as part of the manufacturing process? The final review of the completed specification was performed by Larry Salci, a professional rail equipment consultant under contract to the FRA specifically for performing an objective review of the specifications for completeness, buildability and compliance with the approved requirements document. Mr. Salci has 40 years of experience in the rail equipment manufacturing industry, and brings a very high degree of technical, contractual and practical expertise to the specification review and approval process. Mr. Salci s review of the bi-level specification was summarized as follows: It is Mr. Salci s professional opinion that the PRIIA Section 305 Bi-Level Specification meets all major design objectives and requirements of PRIIA, and approval of the Bi-Level Specification is recommended. He goes on to add It is estimated that, during Mr. Salci s professional career, as the CEO of several passenger railcar manufacturers, he reviewed over 100 rail passenger car specifications. After careful review of the PRIIA Bi-Level car specification, Mr. Salci concluded that this is one of the most thorough, complete, and technically sound specifications he has reviewed. From a technical viewpoint, overall it should be received well by interested car builders and component suppliers. The specification is compliant with all current FRA Tier I requirements and regulations, industry standards and best practices, and incorporates proven technologies for major equipment systems, components, and passenger amenities for operational reliability and maintainability. Upon completion of his review, Mr. Salci prepared a report with a recommendation for approval and submitted it for consideration by the review panel. The report was accepted by the review panel and submitted to the Executive Board. Approval of the Specification by the NGEC Executive Board On August 31, 2010, the NGEC Executive Board met in Washington, DC. During this meeting the Board voted unanimously to approve the PRIIA Bi-Level Specification developed and approved by the TSC, just seven and a half months after creation of the NGEC. This approval was a landmark event and represented the first standardized specification developed by the NGEC in accordance with the requirements of PRIIA. Subsequent to the approval of the bi-level specification, on September 9, 2010 the following announcement was made: U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood today announced the first-ever uniform technical standards for the manufacture of high-speed intercity passenger rail cars, a development that will enhance the ability of U.S. manufacturers to compete in what is set to become a burgeoning industry. As part of the Obama Administration s focus on maximizing manufacturing opportunities, these first-ever uniform standards will provide an unprecedented opportunity for manufacturers in the U.S. from rails to wheel bearings, to final assembly to build a strong, stable manufacturing base. A uniform standard creates a level playing field and economies of scale based on a common set of designs and technical requirements allowing U.S. based manufacturers to more effectively compete. Fostering healthy economic competition will drive down costs for rail owners and operators and the traveling public. Further, maintenance and repair costs will be lower because of lower parts acquisition costs. And, training can be streamlined with just one type of equipment, allowing faster turnaround for repairs. Additional comments were provided by Federal Railroad Administrator Joseph C. Szabo. This is a milestone in the history of rail transportation. These standardized bi-level passenger rail cars will be able to operate nationwide and are compatible with existing equipment. A common design also makes it easier to train maintenance personnel, stock parts and perform repairs, which reduces costs. 9

10 Activities of the NGEC since Approval of the Bi- Level Specification Since adoption of the bi-level specification in August 2010, the NGEC has used the specification development and approval process to complete specifications for single-level standalone intercity cars and high-speed diesel-electric locomotives. Additional specifications are in process or under consideration at this stage, to accommodate the unique needs of intercity operations that require specialized equipment such as trainsets, dualmode locomotives and high-capacity cars capable of operation within tight clearances. These specifications will retain the standardized format, organization and style of the specifications approved previously, and will be built on the framework of existing specifications, such as the bi-level specification, to promote standardization and consistency. Once approved, the rail equipment specifications do not become static, unchanging documents. The specifications will evolve to meet changing technology, operational needs and environmental conditions, and to allow clarifications and refinements that may be applied during the procurement and manufacture of the vehicles. To address this issue the NGEC, through the TSC, has taken on the development of document management procedures that control the changes made to the approved specifications to preserve the integrity and intent of the specifications. The document management process is part of a systems engineering subgroup that is developing a comprehensive system for evaluating the specifications throughout the procurement, production and deployment phases of vehicle acquisition. This will ensure that multiple acquisitions and successive generations of vehicles maintain consistency with, and provide feedback into, the documents, processes and visions that were used to establish the specifications in the first place. Additional discussions involve defining the term standardized as used in the language that established the NGEC, and determining how standardization may be applied to the specifications and processes developed by the NGEC for maximum benefit to the rail equipment owners, operators and suppliers. These exercises, though seemingly academic at first glance, are providing the most comprehensive, open and transparent methods possible for building the next generation of intercity rail equipment that will create a sustainable, buildable and interoperable fleet of rolling stock to be used by generations of rail passengers under a wide variety of conditions, potential owners, builders and configurations. The practicalities and benefits of the NGEC s work are virtually immeasurable. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to acknowledge the hundreds of contributors to the bi-level, single-level and locomotive specifications, including members of state agencies, the FRA, APTA, Amtrak, consultants, car manufacturers, industry representatives and other organizations. Without their skill, dedication and tireless effort, the specifications would not be as complete, comprehensive and refined as they are. Their participation in the NGEC process was on a voluntary, time-available basis. This is an example of true teamwork. The authors would like to thank Tammy Krause (Amtrak), Steve Hewitt (consultant to AASHTO), Kevin Kesler (FRA), Eloy Martinez (LTK), Larry Salci (management consultant), and David Ewing (consultant to AASHTO) for their help in completing this paper. Special thanks to Camren Cordell, Racine Barton and Jeremiah Johnston for their assistance in proofreading, editing and formatting. We would also like to thank Mario Bergeron and Dale Englehardt of Amtrak, Bill Bronte of Caltrans, and the entire NGEC Executive Board for graciously allowing us to take this opportunity to document the teamwork that led to the completion of the bi-level specification. BIBLIOGRAPHY Caltrans Division of Rail, Bi-Level Passenger Rail Cars (C21) for Intercity Corridor Service, March 23, 2010 NGEC, Bylaws and Operating Procedures for the Executive Board, Technical Subcommittee and Finance Subcommittee, January 14, 2010 NGEC, Specification for PRIIA Bi-Level Passenger Rail Car, August 31, 2010 Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act (PRIIA) of 2008 (Public Law No , Division B, enacted Oct. 16, 2008, Amtrak/High-Speed Rail) Salci, Larry, PRIIA Section 305 Bi-Level Vehicle Report-Review Panel, Report No. TU422, Interfleet Technology, August 19,