7000-series - Delivery & Updates

[ctrabs74]

That's inconsistent with how bidding works. If they think they can get a lower bid by removing that from the spec, someone is not going to bid that the next time. If say, some Korean bids $1.2 million for an incompatible car and Bombardier bids $1.6 million for a compatible one, the Korean will file a protest (with the FTA if federal funds are involved) if it does not get the contract. In fact, that's how it appears that Boston got stuck with cars from an unreliable Korean manufacturer, who has left the U.S. market.

Certainly, if Sumitomo got the word to CTA that its bid was $160 million more than Bombardier's because of the compatibility issue, Sumitomo is not going to resubmit that bid.

In fact, CTA behavior has been the opposite, although bus procurement may be separate from rail procurement. CTA rejected all sorts of "we kindly request" from Nova, but still picked the Nova bid, even though it appears to be about $80,000 more per bus than what Pace is paying for 40 foot buses.

The exact same thing happened with SEPTA during the procurement of the new Silverliner V cars.

[Juniorz]

I wonder if CTA will "Ever" release how the 7000-series exterior would look

[BusHunter]

There are still saying the 7K's could be here as early as 2016. I don't see how that's possible. It might be a good idea to rehab the #3200's. Who knows how long we will have them now.

[Busjack]

There are still saying the 7K's could be here as early as 2016. I don't see how that's possible. It might be a good idea to rehab the #3200's. Who knows how long we will have them now.

The article said:

Once a contract is awarded, the CTA expects to have the first 7000 Series cars delivered in 2017, [Tammy] said. Earlier plans called for taking delivery in 2016.

So, as usual, if you have some other source, post it.

As you said, you don't think that is possible. Personally, I can't see 2016, especially since a new bid opening date hasn't been posted yet (nothing on the procurement page), and since Bombardier supplying about the same thing as the 5000s is out, no way to avoid the one-year testing program, unless CTA is also waiving that. The rebid is going to delay stuff at least a year. Maybe that was the intent.

[Amtrak41]

If it makes you feel any better, every contract order AND manufacturer of high-tech NYCT subway cars are incompatible.

About 300 R142's are being rebuilt at Yonkers to be compatible with new R188's.

[Around the Horn]

If it makes you feel any better, every contract order AND manufacturer of high-tech NYCT subway cars are incompatible.

About 300 R142's are being rebuilt at Yonkers to be compatible with new R188's.

You've got that the wrong way around:

The R142A are having CBTC installed,The R188s are being built to be compatible to the converted R142A.They are exactly the same except the conversion sets were already built in 1999-2004 and the R188 are being built now in 2012-2014...

[Amtrak41]

I said is just right. The R142A are at Yonkers to be rebuilt into R188 clones.

[geneking7320]

I like that Tube car, it looks real sharp!

Thanks for posting.

[ctrabs74]

Ever since the "old times" 1892 to today, 2014, only small things are changed.... the cars went from 46 ft. to 48 ft.; the belt measurement went to 9 ft. 4 in. from 8 ft. 8 in.; the gates and doors went from being on the ends to being at the quarter- point of the cars. Height wise, taking the 4271-4272, the Historic Cars has proved that there are only a few places they can"t go. We laugh when we remember those fans that thought the 3200s with the roofboards wouldn't fit in the subway. Although when the two 1939 subways were built, the State and the Dearborn, the Chicago "L" could have been changed forever. The subways were built for wider cars....9 ft. 6 in. and 64 ft. long.

How alike are our "L" cars. CTA used to print a plan that had one series of car at one end and another series at the opposite end. Windows and doors were all most similar. Noone should expect much difference.

In Boston, the "T" is planning new cars for the orange line. Its said that six builders have responded. The present orange cars are patterned after the PATH cars. One internet person said the "T" might consider the London Tube for a design car.

I wonder if the London-type cars would even pass FTA standards (presuming heavy rail cars are held to similar standards as the FRA sets for Metra-type rail cars).

[brownliner]

 

Certainly, if Sumitomo got the word to CTA that its bid was $160 million more than Bombardier's because of the compatibility issue, Sumitomo is not going to resubmit that bid.

If the reason for that x million increase is because they have to buy something from Bombardier, then it's pretty likely Bombardier knows that, and inflated *their* bid by some fraction of that cost. If that's the case, and they submit a new bid, it would be lower. And if it's lower than the Sumitomo's, the CTA would get 5000 compatibility...

[Busjack]

If the reason for that x million increase is because they have to buy something from Bombardier, then it's pretty likely Bombardier knows that, and inflated *their* bid by some fraction of that cost. If that's the case, and they submit a new bid, it would be lower. And if it's lower than the Sumitomo's, the CTA would get 5000 compatibility...

That's the correct direction of speculation. However, you are essentially back to that the Bombardier bid for 7000s isn't that much more than for the 5000s, in which case the question would be why the bids were so uncompetitive for the 5000s (given that the 5000s were not required to be compatible with anything earlier). Maybe Sumitomo not having a plant in Illinois the last time kept them from bidding, but I guess we won't know until the 7000s contract is eventually awarded.

[brownliner]

 

That's the correct direction of speculation. However, you are essentially back to that the Bombardier bid for 7000s isn't that much more than for the 5000s, in which case the question would be why the bids were so uncompetitive for the 5000s (given that the 5000s were not required to be compatible with anything earlier). Maybe Sumitomo not having a plant in Illinois the last time kept them from bidding, but I guess we won't know until the 7000s contract is eventually awarded.

Bombardier's costs for the 7000s should be lower than the 5000. The development costs are very low, since they can basically make a 5000. They've got the supply chain up and working, they have a trained workforce, and they have lots of factory equipment that should be paid for. So less R&D money to recover in the first part of the contract means lower fixed costs to recover on each 7000.

Sumitomo having a local factory might make them more competitive, it might also make them willing to accept a loss on the first part of the contract, on the assumption that all the options will be issued, and so they can recover the fixed development costs over more units.

It's also possible they've made it clear that they have some other design that they could provide, which meets the requirements except for the compatible with existing equipment. (I don't know enough about the cars its built to know if that's true or not). If that's the case, it would mean they'd have lower development costs, and would also put pressure on Bombardier to give a bid more in line with what their costs should be.

[Busjack]

....

Bombardier's costs for the 7000s should be lower than the 5000. The development costs are very low, since they can basically make a 5000. They've got the supply chain up and working, they have a trained workforce, and they have lots of factory equipment that should be paid for. So less R&D money to recover in the first part of the contract means lower fixed costs to recover on each 7000.

....

I suppose that you are suggesting that instead of raising each car $5,000 (7000 series compared to 5000), Bombardier should have lowered it. I can't really predict if that's the case or not.

....

Sumitomo having a local factory might make them more competitive, it might also make them willing to accept a loss on the first part of the contract, on the assumption that all the options will be issued, and so they can recover the fixed development costs over more units.

....

On this one, I can't agree. Maybe this had something to do with increasing the base order, although the 1 year delay also did. However, there would be no point to take a loss on the base, because (1) the options aren't guaranteed, especially if the 3200s outlive the end point of the contract (FTA only allows contracting 5 years out) and (2) it is certainly clear that if CTA exercises most of the options, it won't be ordering anything for about 30 years, unless there is a massive service expansion beyond that contemplated by two contracts for up to 1560 cars compared to the 1190 before a 5000 was received. On the other hand, since Sumitomo does Metra work, there would be some prospect that Metra will get around to some expansion and have to replace cars built in the 1960s-1980s at some closer point in time.

The essential thing I'm sure all rail car assemblers realize is that there is not enough demand in the U.S. to maintain a competitive market, which is why there aren't any domestic suppliers left. Pullman Standard and Budd are not bidding on this, so I don't think any multinational is bidding a loss leader on a custom spec.

UPDATE: Besides that, there is no indication that the low bid isn't for the entire contract, not just the base. Whatever the price is on the options, that has to be reflected in the bid.

[brownliner]

 

UPDATE: Besides that, there is no indication that the low bid isn't for the entire contract, not just the base. Whatever the price is on the options, that has to be reflected in the bid.

When bidding on contracts like this, it's usual to figure out what you think the probablity of the entire contract being awarded, and base your bid on that. The more cars your build, the more cars you can spread the fixed costs of developing the car (design, testing, building factories, training, ...) over, and the less each car costs. If you're wrong, you lose money, if you're right, you don't. Bombardier has pretty low development costs, because a 7000 is pretty much a 5000, and the 5000 line is still going, so yes, I expect that the cost for a 7000 shouldn't be any more, and really quite a bit less.

[joechicago]

Latest update says the cars will start arriving in 2019.

Also, they are increasing the base order to 200 and nearly doubling the options to 1,600, though I imagine that would require some major expansions if they would ever exercise all the options.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-cta-new-rail-cars-expected-in-2019-20140611,0,5531010.story

[Busjack]

Latest update says the cars will start arriving in 2019.

Also, they are increasing the base order to 200 and nearly doubling the options to 1,600, though I imagine that would require some major expansions if they would ever exercise all the options.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-cta-new-rail-cars-expected-in-2019-20140611,0,5531010.story

The 2019 would seem more consistent with at some point 7000s replacing 3200s after the 3200s are rehabbed for life up to 2025.

While it was said before that the base order would be increased, I don't see anything in that article that the number of options would be doubled.* What is your source?

_________

*That seems negated by the statement in the first paragraph about "more than 800 new rail cars." The original solicitation was for up to 846.

[joechicago]

The 2019 would seem more consistent with at some point 7000s replacing 3200s after the 3200s are rehabbed for life up to 2025.

While it was said before that the base order would be increased, I don't see anything in that article that the number of options would be doubled.* What is your source?

_________

*That seems negated by the statement in the first paragraph about "more than 800 new rail cars." The original solicitation was for up to 846.

Interesting, they updated the article after I posted that. Now it says "More than 800" Hilkevitch must've doubled the overall order and not just the first option.

[strictures]

They're still going to have too many inward facing seats on the 7000s as the seats between the platform doors to the motorman's cab will be that way, instead of facing forward/backwards & a set in the middle of the cars will be inward facing, because they refuse to reorient the HVAC return duct to fit under a forward/backward seat.

They just can't do them the way the public wants, can they?

And they refuse to change the seats on the undelivered cars, despite the hatred for the layout.

Total scum running this railroad!

[MetroShadow]

They're still going to have too many inward facing seats on the 7000s as the seats between the platform doors to the motorman's cab will be that way, instead of facing forward/backwards & a set in the middle of the cars will be inward facing, because they refuse to reorient the HVAC return duct to fit under a forward/backward seat.

They just can't do them the way the public wants, can they?

And they refuse to change the seats on the undelivered cars, despite the hatred for the layout.

Total scum running this railroad!

Evolving Engineering and technology is harder than you think, given the finite space to put everything.

[geneking7320]

I think the only benefit of the 5000s seating layout vs previous car series is that the 5000s have two wheelchair stations per car.

Why can't we have two wheelchair stations in a CTA car without the bowling alley seats?

[Busjack]

I think the only benefit of the 5000s seating layout vs previous car series is that the 5000s have two wheelchair stations per car.

Why can't we have two wheelchair stations in a CTA car without the bowling alley seats?

The main question where the underseat HVAC is located (which may affect the turning radius needed for a wheelchair or scooter, which is prescribed), For instance, the seat chart for the proposed 7000s show nothing inbound of the front entrance to the partition where the securement is located, but pretty much all the earlier cars have an HVAC box there, with the wheelchair position being against the cab. If the only objection is to the future, then the question will be when the 7000s arrive, although that also probably means when the 2600s and 3200s are gone.

[peterpyterek]

When the 7000's start arriving, will they first be expanding the fleet in time for the 10-car Red Line trains and the Red Line Extension to 130th Street, or will they be replacing the 2600's and 3200's first?

[briman94]

When the 7000's start arriving, will they first be expanding the fleet in time for the 10-car Red Line trains and the Red Line Extension to 130th Street, or will they be replacing the 2600's and 3200's first?

10-car red line trains? How would that even work? I can only think of a few stations that could even fit a 10-car train.

[peterpyterek]

10-car red line trains? How would that even work? I can only think of a few stations that could even fit a 10-car train.

Well, all of its stations will eventually be rebuilt with platform extensions to accommodate 10-car trains.

[Busjack]

When the 7000's start arriving, will they first be expanding the fleet in time for the 10-car Red Line trains and the Red Line Extension to 130th Street, or will they be replacing the 2600's and 3200's first?

The 7000s spec indicated that 400 cars to replace 2600s, 256 cars to replace 3200s (in the Q&A) and 190 for possible expansion. Of course, in the short term, that's dead.

At the time the Airport Express consultant's report came out, it suggested that 84 of the 5000s be used as Airport Express cars, with one car being set up with luxury amenities for the passengers, and the other essentially being an empty baggage car. When the time came to exercise the options up to 706, it was said that CTA would negotiate with Bombardier to make them all the same as the earlier ones, and then the order was increased to 714.

The consultant's report on the Red Line extension to 130th also indicated that something like 78 more cars would be needed on the Red Line.

As I have noted above, the real question is CTA's intent with regard to increasing the fleet from 1190 before any 5000s were received to in the area of 1370, both now and if 656 of the 7000s ever arrive (714+656=1370).

On the speculation about 10 car trains, if one accepts the year old car assignment sheet on chicago-l.org that 382 cars are needed to run on the Red Line, add the 78 for the extension (getting you to 460) and then multiply that by 10/8 (or 125%), you get 576 cars, or 194 more than present. I don't know if that's factored into the 190 car options at the end of the 7000s, or into the 5000s.

Finally, in an attempt to be responsive to your question, car displacements as a result of the 5000s have demonstrated that replacing a group of cars of a particular series isn't a priority vs. keeping enough equipment of some type running.