7000-series - Delivery & Updates

[Busjack]

Here are examples of each type of door, all from trains in Hong Kong. First links are interior views, while second links are exterior views.

Plug doors, used on the (K-Stock)(A-Stock).

External sliding doors, used on the (M-Stock)(C-Stock).

The inside ones don't illustrate much, except that the plug doors pop back into the doorway when closed.

The outside ones show the difference better, in that the external ones are entirely on an external track.

These also illustrate the sliding platform doors, which some thought CTA was going to get as part of the precision berthing project.

[MTRSP1900-CTA3200]

The inside ones don't illustrate much, except that the plug doors pop back into the doorway when closed.

The outside ones show the difference better, in that the external ones are entirely on an external track.

These also illustrate the sliding platform doors, which some thought CTA was going to get as part of the precision berthing project.

Yeah, essentially the sliding door trains look like regular L train doors from the inside. However there is an experiment there where air bags have been installed that inflate between the exterior sliding doors and the car body to reduce outside sounds.

On the exterior platform doors, I'm still going on the belief that the CTA needs more equipment for the trains to make the platform doors work.

[brownliner]

 

But the freakiest thing I found so far is on page 311 that the #1 side coupler shall be mechanically coupleable with Form 5 couplers through the use of an adapter.Also, it says on page 314 that adapters are to be provided to allow pulling or pushing in the event of an emergency by coupling to the Form 5 couplers used on other series of CTA cars. That means that aside from electrical compatibility, the possibility exists that they won't be mechanically compatible.The only requirement is that they couple to other 7000 series cars without damage. Apparently, CTA is willing to go back to the 1920s, when the various underlying companies had different couplers (CERA 115, page 220).

That sounds like the CTA thinks someone will make a lower bid if they can use the coupler they use on a different fleet of cars. If you're not going to require electrical interoperation, there are fewer reasons you need mechanical coupling. An adapter, particularly one that is carried by the car all the time, would be fine for towing a disabled set.

Does anyone other than the CTA use the coupler they use?

[Busjack]

....

Does anyone other than the CTA use the coupler they use?

Doing a search indicates that NICTD (South Shore) uses them, including on 300 series bilevels. Trainman says they have to couple with similar Metra Electric cars, and some message boards so indicate that the ME uses them, also that they are used on SEPTA regional rail.

The difference seems to be that they have the 4 facet "plunger" instead of a knuckle.

[Pink Jazz]

Reading through the posts in this thread, it appears that the previous RFP was cancelled because CTA was unwilling to award the contract to Bombardier even though the price was similar to the 5000-series. Based on my understanding, isn't this in violation of FTA fair procurement guidelines? As far as I know FTA procurement guidelines prohibit TAs from locking out vendors if their bids are compliant with the requested specifications and are reasonably priced.

[Busjack]

Reading through the posts in this thread, it appears that the previous RFP was cancelled because CTA was unwilling to award the contract to Bombardier even though the price was similar to the 5000-series. Based on my understanding, isn't this in violation of FTA fair procurement guidelines? As far as I know FTA procurement guidelines prohibit TAs from locking out vendors if their bids are compliant with the requested specifications and are reasonably priced.

Nothing says that the TA can't decline to accept any bid.

While it wasn't clearly said why CTA cancelled the original procurement (other than the bids were too high), Bombardier has an equal opportunity to bid on the new spec. In fact, it could be said that the new spec is less likely to result in a single source bid, compared to the original one, which said that the cars had to be compatible with the 5000s.

[See Tea Eh]

It'll be interesting to see where Bombardier goes from here. Their stock has taken a real beating in the past couple of days, their credit rating has been downgraded (the two being related), their aerospace unit is in complete disarray right now, and I believe they warned that their rail division's numbers wouldn't be as good as previously expected either.

[Busjack]

It'll be interesting to see where Bombardier goes from here. Their stock has taken a real beating in the past couple of days, their credit rating has been downgraded (the two being related), their aerospace unit is in complete disarray right now, and I believe they warned that their rail division's numbers wouldn't be as good as previously expected either.

Question here is when you are dealing with a world-wide conglomerate, anything can have an effect (as your aerospace reference indicated).

It is sort of the same as when some activist group went into a snit over Cubic being a defense contractor. Bombardier is one, too.

[Kevin]

Relevant here, perhaps: http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2015/04/06/when-american-transit-agencies-ignore-the-worlds-move-to-open-gangways/

Metros around the world are moving to open gangways, with the US being an exception.

[briman94]

Relevant here, perhaps: http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2015/04/06/when-american-transit-agencies-ignore-the-worlds-move-to-open-gangways/

Metros around the world are moving to open gangways, with the US being an exception.

The difficulty on the 'L' is that the gangways tend to shear quite a bit in the Loop and at locations like Kimball and here

[BusHunter]

Relevant here, perhaps: http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2015/04/06/when-american-transit-agencies-ignore-the-worlds-move-to-open-gangways/

Metros around the world are moving to open gangways, with the US being an exception.

The question that comes to my mind is can the trains car handle 90 degree turns with open gangways and do other cities with open gangways have 90 degree turns? But if any artic can handle it, I supposed a CTA train with an open gangway could.

[BusHunter]

Relevant here, perhaps: http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2015/04/06/when-american-transit-agencies-ignore-the-worlds-move-to-open-gangways/

Metros around the world are moving to open gangways, with the US being an exception.

The question that comes to my mind is can the train cars handle 90 degree turns with open gangways and do other cities with open gangways have 90 degree turns? But if an artic can handle it, I supposed a CTA train with an open gangway could.

[briman94]

The question that comes to my mind is can the trains car handle 90 degree turns with open gangways and do other cities with open gangways have 90 degree turns? But if any artic can handle it, I supposed a CTA train with an open gangway could.

Regarding both your post and mine, I just looked at the comments on the article and apparently they have 40' radius curves in Paris and their open gangways can handle it. The CTA doesn't go smaller than about 40', does it? I don't remember the radius in the loop from when I laid it in Train Sim.

[BusHunter]

Regarding both your post and mine, I just looked at the comments on the article and apparently they have 40' radius curves in Paris and their open gangways can handle it. The CTA doesn't go smaller than about 40', does it? I don't remember the radius in the loop from when I laid it in Train Sim.

The elevated Loop ones are the sharpest turns because they are asking the train too essentially turn corners like a car. They could probably do it, but they would need those circle shaped artic platforms that's in the bus and the ability to stretch the exterior with the artic stretch material.

I forgot about the 1947-48 #5000's, they weren't artic but they are similar. I know they were open gangway and I believe they did run the Ravenswood, so it is theoretically possible. I would be interesting to see how they made the floor in the connecting sections. I've never been on one to see it. The main problem with those were the trucks were placed in the connecting sections making the car hard to repair. If they could design it so the cars could seperate and the trucks were not under the joining sections then they could do it.

[briman94]

The elevated Loop ones are the sharpest turns because they are asking the train too essentially turn corners like a car. They could probably do it, but they would need those circle shaped artic platforms that's in the bus and the ability to stretch the exterior with the artic stretch material.

I forgot about the 1947-48 #5000's, they were artic weren't they. I know they were open gangway and I believe they did run the Ravenswood, so it is theoretically possible. I would be interesting to see how they made the floor in the connecting sections. I've never been on one to see it.

Those are at the Fox River Trolley Museum, right? I live about 10 minutes from there when I'm not in school...I could go check it out for ya

[BusHunter]

Those are at the Fox River Trolley Museum, right? I live about 10 minutes from there when I'm not in school...I could go check it out for ya

Cool, take some pictures if you have a camera.

[Busjack]

I don't think that the issue is the radius of the curves, but that after the original 5000s, CTA did away with articulated cars, for such reasons as they didn't have a big enough lift or pit to work on them without disassembling the articulation.

An argument could be made to connect one pair, if the above problem could be eliminated, but if the article's point is "people who board a train are able to walk from one end of the train to the other without opening doors or stepping outside of the train" no way can CTA operate a 400 foot train that can't be chopped into at least 4 units or disassembled into 8 cars on a regular basis.

Since this was posted under 7000s, it was bad enough that 2 cars were lost as a result of the O'Hare incident (one definitely, and probably the other part of the pair), but guess what would have happened if that happened to a 400 foot train?

...

I forgot about the 1947-48 #5000's, they weren't artic but they are similar. ....

They were artic. within one unit (2 bellows in say 5001).

[briman94]

I don't think that the issue is the radius of the curves, but that after the original 5000s, CTA did away with articulated cars, for such reasons as they didn't have a big enough lift or pit to work on them without disassembling the articulation.

An argument could be made to connect one pair, if the above problem could be eliminated, but if the article's point is "people who board a train are able to walk from one end of the train to the other without opening doors or stepping outside of the train" no way can CTA operate a 400 foot train that can't be chopped into at least 4 units or disassembled into 8 cars on a regular basis.

I think even just articulated pairs would improve crowding a bit. They can probably make do with being able to separate pairs but not individual cars most of the time.

[BusHunter]

I don't think that the issue is the radius of the curves, but that after the original 5000s, CTA did away with articulated cars, for such reasons as they didn't have a big enough lift or pit to work on them without disassembling the articulation.

An argument could be made to connect one pair, if the above problem could be eliminated, but if the article's point is "people who board a train are able to walk from one end of the train to the other without opening doors or stepping outside of the train" no way can CTA operate a 400 foot train that can't be chopped into at least 4 units or disassembled into 8 cars on a regular basis.

Since this was posted under 7000s, it was bad enough that 2 cars were lost as a result of the O'Hare incident (one definitely, and probably the other part of the pair), but guess what would have happened if that happened to a 400 foot train?

They were artic. within one unit (2 bellows in say 5001).

I was thinking in terms of the CTA bus, I forgot the articulation is around the inside gangway, I think.

[metroel]

Anyone have any thoughts on who is competitive for the 7000 series rolling stock competition in light of the new solicitation? Are Bombardier and Nippon Sharyo/Sumitomo still the main competitors, or are we looking at other companies, like Kawasaki (which just produced the Washington Metro 7000 series in Nebraska)?

[sw4400]

Anyone have any thoughts on who is competitive for the 7000 series rolling stock competition in light of the new solicitation? Are Bombardier and Nippon Sharyo/Sumitomo still the main competitors, or are we looking at other companies, like Kawasaki (which just produced the Washington Metro 7000 series in Nebraska)?

It's hard to say. All that usually happens during procurements is potential bidders ask questions, but are kept anonymous. When the 7900-Series was in procurement phase, there were bus manufacturers asking questions. Some were Nova Bus, some were New Flyer and there was discussion of a third company in the bid as well...

[BusHunter]

It's hard to say. All that usually happens during procurements is potential bidders ask questions, but are kept anonymous. When the 7900-Series was in procurement phase, there were bus manufacturers asking questions. Some were Nova Bus, some were New Flyer and there was discussion of a third company in the bid as well...

What was strange was bombardier was the low bidder on the first bid and it was then thrown out. I forgot who was the other top bidder. Siemens? ?

It would seem there is some bad blood between CTA and Bombardier. Maybe they didn't like it when bombardier told them they couldn't change the longitudinal seats in the #5000's.

[sw4400]

What was strange was bombardier was the low bidder on the first bid and it was then thrown out. I forgot who was the other top bidder. Siemens? ?

It would seem there is some bad blood between CTA and Bombardier. Maybe they didn't like it when bombardier told them they couldn't change the longitudinal seats in the #5000's.

I think it might have something to do with the stop and return 2x for defects. The first was for weak brakes on the cars. The second was with the wheels that were manufactured in China that could've caused a derailment because of their truing or something like that. The third recall was because of a missing bolt in the floor that could've over time developed into a major issue. All three times, the Bombardier trains were out of service for a period of time(the second time the longest). The CTA probably had flashbacks of NABI with this whole thing, and that was particularly ugly, especially having to be in litigation for about a year plus. All the lawyer fees and court fees that they had to pay during that case.

[Juniorz]

Well whomever is bidding, we won't find out who will be the manufacturer until Q4 2015-Q1 2016

[Busjack]

It's hard to say. All that usually happens during procurements is potential bidders ask questions, but are kept anonymous.

The first is true, the second IS NOT.

The current spec states that representatives of the following assemblers attended the pre-bid meeting:

Bombardier, Kawasaki. Attachment B indicates that they are proposing together.

The specs also reflect that certain other companies attended inspection meetings at Skokie Shops and submitted comments and subcontractor qualifications:

AnsaldoBreda,.Sumitomo/Nippon Sharyo, and CSR Qingdao Sifang.

Various component suppliers also attended meetings.

Siemens is mentioned as having attended the Sumitomo/NipponSharyo meeting in one addendum, not the other, while vice versa for Alstom. Neither submitted anything.

I think it might have something to do with the stop and return 2x for defects.....

You don't know, and obviously Bombardier was not disqualified. The only public statement was that the bid was too high, so CTA issued a new spec, with various alternatives.

What was strange was bombardier was the low bidder on the first bid and it was then thrown out. I forgot who was the other top bidder. Siemens? ?...

Sumitomo/Nippon Sharyo.

Well whomever is bidding, we won't find out who will be the manufacturer until Q4 2015-Q1 2016

That's certainly correct.

Another point: A response to Kawasaki indicates that the US Employment Plan is number of new US employees, not existing ones. That clarifies how it is distinguished from Buy America Act requirements.