Development of Bi Level Specification Dale Engelhardt, Vice Chair - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Development of Bi‐Level Specification

Dale Engelhardt, Vice Chair Technical Subcommittee

Bi‐Level Specification Objectives

• Identify and specify opportunities for

standardization and modularization

• Identify and incorporate new technologies

applicable for future vehicles

Standardization Methodologies

• Suppliers license their design to be used by all
• ther suppliers
• Selection of a particular suppliers product
• Develop a performance specification with

defined attachment points All strategies have advantages and disadvantages

Modularization

• Definition

– Minimize vehicle out of service time by allowing failed components to be removed and replaced

• quickly. Defective equipment is maintained off line

while vehicle is returned to service.

New Technology

• Development and release of quasi developed

new technologies into current specifications

– Opportunities to introduce additional risks.

Specification derived from editing C21

• Joint specification from California and Amtrak
• All California references removed
• Break Out Teams providing recommended

changes

Recommend Specification Changes

• Break Out Teams Provide Recommendations

to T. Krause, G. Gagarin, and D. Engelhardt as they occur

• Reasons for change provided with

recommendations

• Two recommendation feedback methods

being tested for efficiency

New Bi‐Level Specification

• In Process Specification on AASHTO Web Site
• Final Proposal Completed 7/22/2010
• Prioritization of recommended changes to

Master Specification

• Technical Team Review of Total Specification

Face to face meeting

WORKING GROUP TEAM REPORTS

• Activities:

– Meeting: April 22 – Conf. calls: May 7, 14 and 21 (planned weekly to June 16)

• Accomplishments:

– Review of C21 Chapter 5 complete – 30 paragraphs re‐worded or deleted

• Design Requirements Introducing New Technology:

– Air secondary suspension and orifice damping allowed – Trailing arm primary suspension allowed

Sub‐Group: VTI Team Lead: John Tunna

Sub‐Group: VTI Team Lead: John Tunna

Seq. Component / System Opportunity to Standardize/ Modularize Strategy/ Comments

(Y) = Yes (N) = No (IP) = In Progress (NE) = Not Evaluated yet If (Y) = How if applicable If (N) = Reasons

(1) Axle Y By specifying grade of material and dimensions (2) Wheel Y By specifying grade of material and dimensions (3) Bearing Y By specifying class of bearing (4) Wheelset Y Based on 1 to 3 above and assuming bake arrangement can be standardized (5) Bolster Y A truck bolster is required (6) Non-tilting Y Tilting, for the bi-level car, is not allowed. (7) Secondary suspension N Air suspension and orifice damping should be allowed to give opportunities for improved ride comfort and height control. (8) Primary suspension N Choice of coil springs, chevrons, trailing arms, etc. should not be restricted.

Sub‐Group: VTI Team Lead: John Tunna

Seq. Component / System Opportunity to Standardize/ Modularize Strategy/ Comments

(Y) = Yes (N) = No (IP) = In Progress (NE) = Not Evaluated yet If (Y) = How if applicable If (N) = Reasons

(9) Truck frame and bolster design N As long as strength, clearances, etc. requirements are met the design should be left to the car builder. (10) Truck to carbody connection. NE (11) Truck frame material Y No requirement raised for material other than cast or fabricated steel.

• Activities:

– Two committees have been established. One to study the performance parameters of the locomotive. The other committee is looking at the environmental characteristics of the locomotive. A third group will be formed to study new technologies available for the

• locomotive. This committee will be formed later.

– Both committees have been holding weekly conference calls since the first of May. Even though both committees are working within their respective groups, the team leader participates in both conference calls to keep the group focused and on track. Both Committees studies will be completed by the end of June

• Accomplishments:

– No major accomplishments. The committees are still discussing design parameters but have decided on an inverter HEP system and AC traction motors.

• Design Requirements Introducing New Technology:

– The committee is looking at several new technology devices for the locomotive. The use

• f digital gauges, electronic air brakes, regenerative braking, and Ni‐Cad locomotives

batteries are being considered. Regenerative braking would use the energy from the dynamic brake operations to operate the HEP function instead of dissipating the generated electricity through grids.

Sub‐Group: Locomotive ‐‐ Team Lead: Steve Fretwell

Sub‐Group: Locomotive ‐‐ Team Lead: Steve Fretwell

Seq. Component / System Opportunity to Standardize/ Modularize Strategy/ Comments

(Y) = Yes (N) = No (IP) = In Progress (NE) = Not Evaluated yet If (Y) = How if applicable If (N) = Reasons

(1) Engine horsepower (HP) IP HP requirements not determined yet (2) Truck type and wheel size NE Leaning towards a fabricated type truck with a larger size wheel than the standard 40” wheel. (3 ) Cab layout and inside cab components Y Have not discussed in depth at this point. Good

• pportunity to standardize and modularize

(4 ) Type of Head End Power (HEP) IP Decided on an inverter type HEP power source in lieu of an auxiliary engine driven power source ( 5) Carbody aerodynamics NE TBD (6 ) Locomotive connectivity with trailing passenger cars NE TBD ( 7) Fuel efficiency and environmental requirements IP TBD (8 ) Locomotive batteries Y

• Yes. Use of these batteries are lighter and more efficient.

• Activities:

– Initial meeting April 22 (Chicago) – Teleconferences weekly through June 16 (April 26, May 3, 10, 17, 25)

• Accomplishments:

– Responsible for brakes, doors, diaphragms, waste & water system and relevant Material & Workmanship and Testing portions of specification – Group comments formulated substantially for brakes and doors

• Design Requirements Introducing New Technology:

– Subgroup generally in favor of performance‐based specification for brake system

Sub‐Group: MECHANICAL Team Lead: Jeff Gordon

Seq. Component/System Opportunity to Standardize/ Modularize Strategy/ Comments

(Y) = Yes (N) = No (IP) = In Progress (NE) = Not Evaluated yet If (Y) = How if applicable If (N) = Reasons

(1) Brakes IP Pneumatic brake system specified in C21 is very similar to existing brake system. Opportunity exists for technological improvement with ECP braking and pneumatic overlay for compatibility with existing equipment Subgroup recommends removal of references to specific manufacturers’ part numbers, replacing these with functional requirements (2) Doors/Diaphragms NE ( 3) Water & Waste System IP Potential exists to standardize on toilet modules similar in form-fit-function to current equipment

Sub‐Group: MECHANICAL Team Lead: Jeff Gordon

• C21 specification generally seeks a replacement bi‐level car which can be

introduced into service with minimal differences from existing fleet, therefore much of C21 is already “standardized”

• Activities:

– Conference Calls: 4/28, 5/5, 5/10, 5/17 – Frequent emails between subgroup members on topics.

• Accomplishments:

– Assigned interior items from C‐21 Chapter 9 specification to sub‐ group team members to review. – Developing draft recommendation and reviewing them on conference calls.

• Design Requirements Introducing New Technology:

– LED lighting appears to be an emerging recommendation.

Sub‐Group: _Interiors__ Team Lead: Andrew Wood

Sub‐Group: Interiors Team Lead: Andrew Wood

Seq. Component / System Opportunity to Standardize/ Modularize Strategy/ Comments

(Y) = Yes (N) = No (IP) = In Progress (NE) = Not Evaluated yet If (Y) = How if applicable If (N) = Reasons

(1) Seats IP Standardized seat track issue is being examined. (2) lighting IP Gathered information on LED life cycle costs. Appears promising. (3 ) table IP Looking at draft ATPA standards for CEM/Energy Absorption ( 4) windows IP ( 5) Carpet NE ( 6) Garbage NE ( 7) Restrooms NE ( 8) Luggage IP Racks versus enclosed bins is a discussion item.

Sub‐Group: Interiors Team Lead: Andrew Wood

Seq. Component / System Opportunity to Standardize/ Modularize Strategy/ Comments

(Y) = Yes (N) = No (IP) = In Progress (NE) = Not Evaluated yet If (Y) = How if applicable If (N) = Reasons

(9) Video/AV NE (10) Crew Space IP (11) Aisle IP ( 12) Crew Finance Space NE ( 13) Catering Car NE ( 14) Ceiling NE ( 15) Baggage Car NE ( 16) Dining car NE

Sub‐Group: Interiors Team Lead: Andrew Wood

Seq. Component / System Opportunity to Standardize/ Modularize Strategy/ Comments

(Y) = Yes (N) = No (IP) = In Progress (NE) = Not Evaluated yet If (Y) = How if applicable If (N) = Reasons

(17) Heater Recommendations NE

• Activities:

– Weekly conference calls, Tuesday at 1:00pm – Calls held on 5/11 and 5/18 – Next call 5/25

• Accomplishments:

– Have reviewed the following chapters;

• Chapter 8 ‐ Doors
• Chapter 11 – Lighting
• Chapter 14 – Food Service
• Design Requirements Introducing New Technology:

– Lighting will be predominately LED – Doors may be Plug Doors

Sub‐Group: Electrical Team Lead: Tammy Krause

Sub‐Group: Electrical Team Lead: Tammy Krause

Seq. Component / System Opportunity to Standardize/ Modularize Strategy/ Comments

(Y) = Yes (N) = No (IP) = In Progress (NE) = Not Evaluated yet If (Y) = How if applicable If (N) = Reasons

(8) Doors IP Want to move to plug doors (10) Lighting N Want to move to LED lighting. (11 ) HVAC Y Will design a unit that can work with existing Surfliner and California 2 cars (12 ) Communications NE ( 13) Electrical NE (14 ) Food Service N This section may be removed (16 ) Cab NE

• Activities:

– April 22 Chicago meeting with representation from most global manufacturers – Developed, reviewed and commented on “Buy America” white paper to express industry’s issues and concerns with proposed policy – Added element to design change recommendation process to provide integration function for all sub‐groups – will involve regular meetings (weekly or as needed)

• Accomplishments:

‐Prepared draft “Buy America” white paper for review and discussion by Section 305 Executive Committee

• Design Requirements Introducing New Technology:

– none to date

Sub‐Group: Cars Team Lead: Ken Uznanski

• Activities:

– Meeting: April 22 – Conf. calls: April 28, May 5 and 11 (planned weekly to June 16)

• Accomplishments:

– Reviewing C21 Chapters 2, 4, 6, 16, 18, and 19 – Additionally, using SCRRA/MetroLink CEM specification – Introducing CEM on top of fully compliant carbody structures

• Design Requirements Introducing New Technology:

– Push‐back Couplers – Crush zone energy absorbers

Sub‐Group: Structural Group Team Lead: Eloy Martinez

Seq. Component / System Opportunity to Standardize/ Modularize Strategy/ Comments

(Y) = Yes (N) = No (IP) = In Progress (NE) = Not Evaluated yet If (Y) = How if applicable If (N) = Reasons

(1) Push-back Couplers for bi- level cab cars Y By specifying form, fit and function through performance standards (2) Crush zone energy absorbers for bi-level cab cars Y By specifying form, fit and function through performance standards (3) Push-back Couplers for bi- level coach and service cars Y By specifying form, fit and function through performance standards (4) Crush zone energy absorbers for bi-level coach and service cars Y By specifying form, fit and function through performance standards

Sub‐Group: Structural Group Team Lead: Eloy Martinez