5000-series - Updates

[mkohut]

The problem was discovered by Bombardier, not CTA. They just agreed to CTA's terms upon hearing about it.

Regardless who discover it .Its unacceptable that problems still are happening.

[jajuan]

The problem was discovered by Bombardier, not CTA. They just agreed to CTA's terms upon hearing about it.

Granted but it doesn't change that CTA is still on better footing regarding this problem unlike with NABI where they were in desperate need of buses and basically stuck with NABI even after it was shown there were red flags there going into that deal.

[Busjack]

The problem was discovered by Bombardier, not CTA. They just agreed to CTA's terms upon hearing about it.

Regardless who discover it .Its unacceptable that problems still are happening.

I have to go with mk on this one. Even if we buy the article saying that Bombardier discovered it, it shouldn't have taken two years.

The more plausible explanation I can get from the article is that someone thought they could get away with cutting corners, because the plans were "over engineered."

[trainman8119]

Bombardier skipped the welds, but the CTA took delivery...they are as inept and responsible for this as anyone. What is scary to me is that for some reason they are in bed with them, right down to the nonsense about the sidewinder seats. The idea that a whole new engineering blueprint was needed to put seats in is preposterous. Its not like it has ever been done before. Plenty of the cars rehabbed by them for the Electric District have forward facing seats, its not like they don't have a history to refer to. Whether they are reputable (and I am sure they are) or not, this reaks of NABI all over again. I think the only difference is that NABI had a history of producing junk and the CTA bought from them anyway.

[BusHunter]

I have to go with mk on this one. Even if we buy the article saying that Bombardier discovered it, it shouldn't have taken two years.

The more plausible explanation I can get from the article is that someone thought they could get away with cutting corners, because the plans were "over engineered."

Automobiles have recalls that can go as far back as the life of the car (10-15 years) The point of my statement was that Bombardier as least took responsibility for a defect. NABI did not do that so at least Bombardier deserves credit for that. (not that I'm making excuses for them) One thing that CTA keeps doing wrong, is making big orders with new models or technology. The big order with NABI for models that have never been built before. This big order with Bombardier for AC propulsion, something new on the CTA system. They've done more cautious purchasing in the past. (The 65 #5800's) what ever happened to purchasing a small fleet and purchasing more cars if the company proves to be worthy of such an investment.

[sw4400]

(The 65 #5800's) what ever happened to purchasing a small fleet and purchasing more cars if the company proves to be worthy of such an investment.

The 5800-Series New Flyer D40LF buses were a trial order for Low Floor buses the CTA was testing, that's why we only had 65 of them. Previously, the CTA ordered and was still receiving 6000-Series buses from Flxible when these started to come in. That was the big order at the time, with 330 coming in. But those 65 paved the way for our first big order of Low Floor buses starting in 1998, when CTA awarded a contract to NOVA Bus for 484 LFS model buses.

The CTA never ordered quantities of buses under 100. The only exceptions being the M.A.N Articulated 7000-Series, where only 20 were ordered and the Flyer D901A option 2, where only 25* were ordered.

*= 1614 was never accepted due to frame issues with the Flyer buses.

[See Tea Eh]

Automobiles have recalls that can go as far back as the life of the car (10-15 years) The point of my statement was that Bombardier as least took responsibility for a defect. NABI did not do that so at least Bombardier deserves credit for that. (not that I'm making excuses for them) One thing that CTA keeps doing wrong, is making big orders with new models or technology. The big order with NABI for models that have never been built before. This big order with Bombardier for AC propulsion, something new on the CTA system. They've done more cautious purchasing in the past. (The 65 #5800's) what ever happened to purchasing a small fleet and purchasing more cars if the company proves to be worthy of such an investment.

When it comes to procuring rail transit cars, it's very difficult to just buy off-the-shelf items. There are far fewer systems that have heavy rail transit than have buses (where you can buy existing designs). Plus, CTA has some constraints (namely the necessity for trains to make it around tight curves) that make CTA's equipment requirements different from virtually every other system out there. There's simply no way for CTA to make use of cars that run in New York, Washington, DC, Atlanta, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Toronto, etc.

In other words, no matter what, CTA pretty much has to get a custom-designed railcar. Off-the-shelf simply doesn't exist in a way that would satisfy CTA's physical requirements.

When you need a customized product that has, essentially, zero market beyond one single customer, it makes no financial sense to just get a small fleet. The manufacturer has to design not only that railcar, but also a production line and testing system for that railcar. That comes at significant cost. If you're only going to commit to a tiny production run, the cost per car is going to be astronomical. The only realistic way to get the order into a reasonable realm of affordability is to commit to a large production run.

[Busjack]

,,,One thing that CTA keeps doing wrong, is making big orders with new models or technology. The big order with NABI for models that have never been built before. This big order with Bombardier for AC propulsion, something new on the CTA system. ...

As I noted above, the two delays were not for reasons anyone here stated. Also, except for the "losing power at Tower 18" issue raised here, on which CTA has never commented, and apparently cured since it has been running trains on the Pink and Green Lines, the stuff has nothing to do with their being AC cars.

Assuming that anyone would have bid on the 3500 spec., which was supposedly the same as the 3200 one, garbage parts from China and bad welding would have still been possible. From my understanding, which I'm sure could be corrected by some rail engineer, the bodies of the 3200s and 5000s are the same except for the bigger vent chase and that they are fabricated in the USA.

There are even references to PCC kingpins and the like in the 7000 specs, if one wants to go totally retro.

Basically, the difference between the NABI episode and this is that transit authorities putting quality control consultants in assembly plants has become standard operating procedure. For instance, I wondered why NICTD sent inspectors to Japan when it was getting essentially the same as Metra equipment, but they did.

[chicagopcclcar]

One thing that CTA keeps doing wrong, is making big orders with new models or technology...... This big order with Bombardier for AC propulsion, something new on the CTA system. They've done more cautious purchasing in the past.

First off, "right" or "wrong" is determined by whom. AC technology is not "new"....find another transit agency that hasn't ordered AC propulsion. AC might be new on the CTA, but it certainly isn't new to heavy rail or light rail transit. As See Tea Eh pointed out, agencies buying rail cars are faced with many unique constraints. And the production stopping issues with Bombardier's 5000s haven't involved the new technologies at all; they've all been about good old-fashioned materials and workmanship issues that could have been encoutered if we were making buggies and buggy whips as pointed out above. I'm only wondering if the Tribune had not again published another "quality" issue would the CTA and Bombardier have said anything, now that 5000 series rail cars are being delivered again.

[BusHunter]

First off, "right" or "wrong" is determined by whom.

So your saying the NABI purchase for unproven vehicles was smart?

[Busjack]

So your saying the NABI purchase for unproven vehicles was smart?

There are objective standards in specifications. For instance,all bus ones say that they have to pass Altoona testing. Whomever at CTA determined that that specification was satisfied was wrong, but I guess someone wants us to bow down at the altar of St. Frank the Goatherd.

Even if "satisfactory report" might have had a subjective element, the news stories at the time about the NABIs said that the welds did not correspond to the schematic drawings, which is an objective matter.*

In this case, the specifications obviously said three welds, or Bombardier would have given CTA flack over it. Three isn't two.

____________

*Update: And if the NABIs were not objectively defective, the case would not have been settled in the manner it was, i.e. NABI will pay something and let CTA scrap the buses, as opposed to sticking to its original lying press release that it would inspect and fix them.

[chicagopcclcar]

So your saying the NABI purchase for unproven vehicles was smart?

Allow me to clarify...I know absolutely nothing about buses....nothing. I know about the 'L', only. I only discuss the 'L'. You haven't noticed that, LOL. But I'm glad that ChicagoBus.org has this forum on CTA Rail. I hope everyone sees the humor in this.

[BusHunter]

When you need a customized product that has, essentially, zero market beyond one single customer, it makes no financial sense to just get a small fleet. The only realistic way to get the order into a reasonable realm of affordability is to commit to a large production run.

How about we use the Morrison Knudson #3200's as an example. Here is a pretty well constructed rail car. Yet CTA purchases only 257 of them. (if you count #3457) This is a reasonably small amount of cars, which is what I'm referring to, not 10 cars, and the crime of it is these cars are pretty good. In steps Bombardier, which has had trouble with brakes in German cars which has been documented on the net, yet CTA purchases 706 cars? They even have the opportunity to decline the final option in July 2011 for 300 more cars and they accept it. Now up to this point they had 2 failures including the brake issue in 2010. Why would they then go ahead and sign the last option, especially if their looking at more cars in the future from someone else (the #7000 series) This is probably going to be something the CTA will end up regretting when they retire most of the old cars and have a #5000 problem and have nothing to replace them with. But in my opinion they only have themselves to blame.

[Busjack]

How about we use the Morrison Knudson #3200's as an example. Here is a pretty well constructed rail car. Yet CTA purchases only 257 of them. (if you count #3457) This is a reasonably small amount of cars, which is what I'm referring to, not 10 cars, and the crime of it is these cars are pretty good. In steps Bombardier, which has had trouble with brakes in German cars which has been documented on the net, yet CTA purchases 706 cars? They even have the opportunity to decline the final option in July 2011 for 300 more cars and they accept it. Now up to this point they had 2 failures including the brake issue in 2010. Why would they then go ahead a sign the last option, especially if there looking at more cars in the future from someone else (the #7000 series) This is probably going to be something the CTA will end up regretting when they retire most of the old cars and have a #5000 problem and have nothing to replace them with. But in my opinion they only have themselves to blame.

There are a couple of things that enter into these decisions. CTA may have acted in a rash manner, but it had its reasons.

• How many cars are needed, based on such things as service life. In 1993, they needed 100 cars for the Orange Line, plus had about 180 cars ready for retirement (mostly 2000s, although they were also talking about PCCs at the time). At least when the Bombardier deal was announced at 406, there were 2200s and 2400s that needed to be replaced, plus projected fleet growth for the Brown Line and (ha ha) Airport Olympics Express.
• Economics behind the exercise of options.In the case of the 1000 series buses, CTA borrowed money to exercise Options 3 and 4 when it did because Huberman said that the inflation index in the contract was worse than what it would cost to borrow. Similarly, the options on this contract were exercised because they said that the cost per car if they weren't exercised and the contract had to be rebid would have gone up from $1.4 million a car to $2.5 million. Coincidentally, that's what news reports say that the cost per car of the 7000s is projected to be.
• At the time, Morrison-Knudsen had its problems, and went out of business. The constructor of the Metra locomotives is an offshoot, and at least railfan internet boards complain about them.

With NABI you had the point that CTA chose a cheaper unknown product when it could have gone with New Flyer, which had a more proven articulated bus. However, here you are talking about a custom deal, whether either Bombardier or Alstom got the contract. And, as pointed out frequently, these cars went through a year and a half testing program to shake out bugs, but that the prototypes were properly welded.

Maybe, though, this should be a lesson that CTA shouldn't go all ape over the 7000 solicitation.

[BusHunter]

Allow me to clarify...I know absolutely nothing about buses....nothing. I know about the 'L', only. I only discuss the 'L'. You haven't noticed that, LOL. But I'm glad that ChicagoBus.org has this forum on CTA Rail. I hope everyone sees the humor in this.

Well in all fairness you quoted my post that included the mentioning of buses LOL. So I'm seeing the humor in this.

[BusHunter]

There are a couple of things that enter into these decisions. CTA may have acted in a rash manner, but it had its reasons.

• How many cars are needed, based on such things as service life. In 1993, they needed 100 cars for the Orange Line, plus had about 180 cars ready for retirement (mostly 2000s, although they were also talking about PCCs at the time). At least when the Bombardier deal was announced at 406, there were 2200s and 2400s that needed to be replaced, plus projected fleet growth for the Brown Line and (ha ha) Airport Olympics Express.
• Economics behind the exercise of options.In the case of the 1000 series buses, CTA borrowed money to exercise Options 3 and 4 when it did because Huberman said that the inflation index in the contract was worse than what it would cost to borrow. Similarly, the options on this contract were exercised because they said that the cost per car if they weren't exercised and the contract had to be rebid would have gone up from $1.4 million a car to $2.5 million. Coincidentally, that's what news reports say that the cost per car of the 7000s is projected to be.

With NABI you had the point that CTA chose a cheaper unknown product when it could have gone with New Flyer, which had a more proven articulated bus. However, here you are talking about a custom deal, whether either Bombardier or Alstom got the contract. And, as pointed out frequently, these cars went through a year and a half testing program to shake out bugs, but that the prototypes were properly welded.

Maybe, though, this should be a lesson that CTA shouldn't go all ape over the 7000 solicitation.

I can understand replacing the #2200's because they are too old. Maybe even the #2400's. But they could've waited on replacing half of the #2600's, especially if their going for the #7000 series. They certainly didn't need to worry about a fleet increase for the 130th Dan Ryan extension which is most likely a decade away at least. That could have been done with the #7000 series. Ironically, I believe the #7000 series cars are going to be great, because CTA will be under so much heat for this purchase they will be more cautious with the next maybe going with Siemens, Bombardier's competitor.

[Busjack]

I can understand replacing the #2200's because they are too old. Maybe even the #2400's. But they could've waited on replacing half of the #2600's, especially if their going for the #7000 series. They certainly didn't need to worry about a fleet increase for the 130th Dan Ryan extension which is most likely a decade away at least. That could have been done with the #7000 series. Ironically, I believe the #7000 series cars are going to be great, because CTA will be under so much heat for this purchase they will be more cautious with the next maybe going with Siemens, Bombardier's competitor.

The first goes to the prior point of paying $1.4 million now or $2.5 million later.

The second point goes to my earlier point of either the 7000 spec being similar enough to the 5000 spec that Bombardier has a leg up, or maybe they don't because about 8 assemblers showed up at the prebid meeting. Maybe the Japanese and Koreans are interested this time around.

[eyetube21]

Today, I've spotted the 5000s new cars #5247-48 and #5249-50 on the Red Line at Lake/State subway station heading south to Ashland/63rd terminal.

[ctrabs74]

... In steps Bombardier, which has had trouble with brakes in German cars which has been documented on the net, yet CTA purchases 706 cars? They even have the opportunity to decline the final option in July 2011 for 300 more cars and they accept it. Now up to this point they had 2 failures including the brake issue in 2010. Why would they then go ahead and sign the last option, especially if their looking at more cars in the future from someone else (the #7000 series) This is probably going to be something the CTA will end up regretting when they retire most of the old cars and have a #5000 problem and have nothing to replace them with. But in my opinion they only have themselves to blame.

Bombardier, however, also has a good track record of building heavy rail cars in the U.S. (New York City). It's not a situation where CTA went with an unproven manufacturer (as SEPTA/MBTA did when they chose Rotem to build their new railroad cars).

[mkohut]

The total number of 5000's is 714.They made a deal with all the extra parts they had to get 8 more rail cars.

[Busjack]

Bombardier, however, also has a good track record of building heavy rail cars in the U.S. (New York City). It's not a situation where CTA went with an unproven manufacturer (as SEPTA/MBTA did when they chose Rotem to build their new railroad cars).

Which is apparently a part of Hyundai.(Have to go to the Company pulldown.) Let's hope that their weaponry can take on Kim Jung Un's Mentos rockets.

[Busjack]

Bombardier, however, also has a good track record of building heavy rail cars in the U.S. (New York City). It's not a situation where CTA went with an unproven manufacturer (as SEPTA/MBTA did when they chose Rotem to build their new railroad cars).

If this article from the Philadelphia Inquirer in 2011 is correct, problems with Bombardier are child's play compared to the mess at Hyundai-Rotem.

More recently, the Inquirer indicates that MBTA was about to cancel its contract, but the MBTA site indicates that it did not.

[chicagopcclcar]

If this article from the Philadelphia Inquirer in 2011 is correct, problems with Bombardier are child's play compared to the mess at Hyundai-Rotem.

More recently, the Inquirer indicates that MBTA was about to cancel its contract, but the MBTA site indicates that it did not.

Interesting article, sounds like the factory problems are more about clashing cultures....isn't Bombardier Canadien...not too much difference between cultures there. Another problematic aspect is the increasing complexity of a small batch product, transit rail cars; unlike appliances and automobiles where millions and thousands can pour off assembly lines. And it sounds like some workers in Philly aren't getting paid very much..."ya gets whatcha pay for." But I remember that ole wives' tale...never buy a new car that was stuck on the assembly line over a weekend from Friday to Monday. And "Lord, NO!" not a three-day weekend. Of course, how could you tell.

[ctrabs74]

If this article from the Philadelphia Inquirer in 2011 is correct, problems with Bombardier are child's play compared to the mess at Hyundai-Rotem.

More recently, the Inquirer indicates that MBTA was about to cancel its contract, but the MBTA site indicates that it did not.

Yup. I used to live in Philadephia and rode SEPTA's new Silverliner V railroad cars. I was not fully impressed with them and wish SEPTA could've gone with Bombardier or Kawasaki. Instead, they got stuck with lowest bid after protracted legal action by losing bidders.

[Busjack]

Yup. I used to live in Philadephia and rode SEPTA's new Silverliner V railroad cars. I was not fully impressed with them and wish SEPTA could've gone with Bombardier or Kawasaki. Instead, they got stuck with lowest bid after protracted legal action by losing bidders.

Looking at Addendum 1, at least they weren't at the prebid meeting and inspection.