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 other 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
Sub ‐ Group: VTI Team Lead: John Tunna • 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 Seq. Component Opportunity to Strategy/ Comments Standardize/ / System Modularize (Y) = Yes (N) = No If (Y) = How if applicable (IP) = In Progress If (N) = Reasons (NE) = Not Evaluated yet (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 Opportunity to Strategy/ Comments Standardize/ / System Modularize (Y) = Yes (N) = No If (Y) = How if applicable (IP) = In Progress If (N) = Reasons (NE) = Not Evaluated yet (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.
Sub ‐ Group: Locomotive ‐‐ Team Lead: Steve Fretwell • 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 of 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 Seq. Component Opportunity to Strategy/ Comments Standardize/ / System Modularize (Y) = Yes (N) = No If (Y) = How if applicable (IP) = In Progress If (N) = Reasons (NE) = Not Evaluated yet (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 Y Have not discussed in depth at this point. Good components opportunity to standardize and modularize (4 ) Type of Head End Power IP Decided on an inverter type HEP power source in lieu of (HEP) an auxiliary engine driven power source ( 5) Carbody aerodynamics NE TBD (6 ) Locomotive connectivity with NE TBD trailing passenger cars ( 7) Fuel efficiency and IP TBD environmental requirements (8 ) Locomotive batteries Y Yes. Use of these batteries are lighter and more efficient.
Sub ‐ Group: MECHANICAL Team Lead: Jeff Gordon • 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 Strategy/ Comments Standardize/ Modularize (Y) = Yes (N) = No If (Y) = How if applicable (IP) = In Progress If (N) = Reasons (NE) = Not Evaluated yet (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 • 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”
Sub ‐ Group: _Interiors__ Team Lead: Andrew Wood • 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 Seq. Component Opportunity to Strategy/ Comments Standardize/ / System Modularize (Y) = Yes (N) = No If (Y) = How if applicable (IP) = In Progress If (N) = Reasons (NE) = Not Evaluated yet (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 Opportunity to Strategy/ Comments Standardize/ / System Modularize (Y) = Yes (N) = No If (Y) = How if applicable (IP) = In Progress If (N) = Reasons (NE) = Not Evaluated yet (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 Opportunity to Strategy/ Comments Standardize/ / System Modularize (Y) = Yes (N) = No If (Y) = How if applicable (IP) = In Progress If (N) = Reasons (NE) = Not Evaluated yet (17) Heater Recommendations NE
Sub ‐ Group: Electrical Team Lead: Tammy Krause • 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
Recommend
More recommend
