7000-series - Delivery & Updates

[Juniorz]

Req. C14FI101554098, Request for Proposals (RFP) for Rapid Transit Cars.

Notice is hereby given that the Proposal Due Date heretofore advertised as Friday, May 29, 2015 has been extended to Tuesday, July 28, 2015, no later than 3:30 p.m. in the CTA Bid Office.

So looks like the reveal of the new 7000-series won't come until 2016. 

[Busjack]

Req. C14FI101554098, Request for Proposals (RFP) for Rapid Transit Cars.

Notice is hereby given that the Proposal Due Date heretofore advertised as Friday, May 29, 2015 has been extended to Tuesday, July 28, 2015, no later than 3:30 p.m. in the CTA Bid Office.

So looks like the reveal of the new 7000-series won't come until 2016. 

​True, but they are only up to Addendum #7. If past is prologue, expect some more, especially since in this case, the Addenda result from some new potential bidder making new requests.

[garmon757]

Req. C14FI101554098, Request for Proposals (RFP) for Rapid Transit Cars.

Notice is hereby given that the Proposal Due Date heretofore advertised as Friday, May 29, 2015 has been extended to Tuesday, July 28, 2015, no later than 3:30 p.m. in the CTA Bid Office.

So looks like the reveal of the new 7000-series won't come until 2016. 

​Wait, hold on. Where did you get that information from???

[Busjack]

​Wait, hold on. Where did you get that information from???

​That's in the public area of the CTA Contract Opportunities page, when you click on that requisition (like here). Note the entries in red.

[garmon757]

​That's in the public area of the CTA Contract Opportunities page, when you click on that requisition (like here).

​Thanks. I'm trying to think how to describe this but all I can say that it's somewhat not up to par.

[Busjack]

​Thanks. I'm trying to think how to describe this but all I can say that it's somewhat not up to par.

​As I indicated above, it is typical, and more foreseeable this time as it appears that there are numerous vendors trying to get approvals for various components and the like, as well as variations from the specs (see the above post).

If you want to get historical, both CTA and Pace kept extending the deadlines for the buses procured about 10 years ago, and in the CTA case, NABI announced that it was the apparent low bidder, but the contract wasn't awarded and NF got the deal. At the time it was said that the extensions were due to lack of funding, but we now figure differently about NABI, as the problems with the 7500s were just coming to light while that procurement was pending.

[Juniorz]

Addendum #7 was posted this morning (4/24/15). 

[Busjack]

Hilkevitch column sort of explaining the delays.

He also cites a study that the seating arrangement, besides being unpopular, failed at the goal of cramming more passengers into a car.

[briman94]

The article mentions the possibility of roof-mounted AC equipment, presumably similar to that found on some busses, in order to increase space in the car...that's the first mention I've seen of such options.

[Busjack]

The article mentions the possibility of roof-mounted AC equipment, presumably similar to that found on some busses, in order to increase space in the car...that's the first mention I've seen of such options.

​You have to wonder about clearances in the subway. The last time something like that was tried was the 2000s, except the equipment was inside the car.

Update, except, on rereading, the article implied that the under the car part was new.

Edited April 27, 2015 by Busjack

[briman94]

​You have to wonder about clearances in the subway. The last time something like that was tried was the 2000s, except the equipment was inside the car.

Update, except, on rereading, the article implied that the under the car part was new.

​I didn't read the entire procurement spec, but I don't remember seeing anything about above-car AC equipment. I'm not sure how much clearance is in specific parts of the subway, but it sure seems like having AC equipment on top is cutting it a bit close.

[MTRSP1900-CTA3200]

​I didn't read the entire procurement spec, but I don't remember seeing anything about above-car AC equipment. I'm not sure how much clearance is in specific parts of the subway, but it sure seems like having AC equipment on top is cutting it a bit close.

​Unless you mount the AC unit partially outside of the train, but that defeats the purpose, as it doesn't help the passengers.

[Busjack]

​Unless you mount the AC unit partially outside of the train, but that defeats the purpose, as it doesn't help the passengers.

​Not sure where you are going with this one. The condenser has to be mounted somewhere on the outside or vented outside, since the way an air conditioner works is that it removes heat. You basically have fallen for the fallacy about why a refrigerator does not cool the room it is in if you leave the door open, since the coils are on the back.

[MTRSP1900-CTA3200]

​Not sure where you are going with this one...

​I meant the differences on how the AC unit is attached to the car.

On NYC's R160s, the AC unit looks like it's embedded in the subway car, even if it might not be, and does not affect the overall look of the car in terms of aerodynamics on the outside. On the inside, the ceiling looks a little lower though compared to my next example.

In Tokyo however, an example of a different set up is the Tokyo Metro 15000 Series, where there is a moderately sized hump on the top of the car, probably for the AC unit. On the inside, the ceiling looks higher.

What I'm trying to say is if the CTA wants roof AC units, they should go with the NYC style ones, even if they remove a little overhead room.

[BusHunter]

The tribune's hilkevitch has a story about the #7000's in today's paper. There might be a link. Anyway he states the prototypes will arrive in 2019 and be tested for a year before they even start the base order in 2020. The #3200's will stay where they are on the orange and brown as well as the #2600's will stay on the blue. So I still don't know how they will run the brownage with just #3200's?

[jajuan]

The tribune's hilkevitch has a story about the #7000's in today's paper. There might be a link. Anyway he states the prototypes will arrive in 2019 and be tested for a year before they even start the base order in 2020. The #3200's will stay where they are on the orange and brown as well as the #2600's will stay on the blue. So I still don't know how they will run the brownage with just #3200's?

​I don't think he was saying 2600s will only be on the Blue Line. The same story is in the RedEye and part of what he says is the 3200s will get overhauls to keep them going until some time in the 2020s when they get replaced by 7000s and that the 7000s will also replace the 2600s that are mostly on the Blue Line, meaning they are on other lines which we know includes the Orange Line now that the 2400s are retired. One other thing was a picture was given showing a proposed way they might want to use 3200s to get away from the bowling alley seats we're stuck with on the 5000s.

[Busjack]

...One other thing was a picture was given showing a proposed way they might want to use 3200s to get away from the bowling alley seats we're stuck with on the 5000s.

​That's been around since the early days of the first requisition for the 7000s, and was in the first edition of the second requisition.

[jajuan]

​That's been around since the early days of the first requisition for the 7000s, and was in the first edition of the second requisition.

​I know that. I mentioned it to point out how Hilkevich's main thrust seemed to be CTA acknowledging they botched it with the 5000s seating.

[Busjack]

​I know that. I mentioned it to point out how Hilkevich's main thrust seemed to be CTA acknowledging they botched it with the 5000s seating.

​That was evident by citing the study, but, of course, nothing was explained about the insistence on not changing the design about 400 5000s ago, when all the squawking occurred, or why bench seats (as in several of the renderings) rather than the plastic shell ones weren't used from that point forward (as the study indicates that people don't want to sit in a shell between two other people).

[jajuan]

​That was evident by citing the study, but, of course, nothing was explained about the insistence on not changing the design about 400 5000s ago, when all the squawking occurred, or why bench seats (as in several of the renderings) rather than the plastic shell ones weren't used from that point forward (as the study indicates that people don't want to sit in a shell between two other people).

​You're right. They have yet to explain that part of it Just shows they were just that fixated on cramming more people into the cars like sardines. 

[Busjack]

July 28th was the cut off date

Again, true. However, since there were 9 addenda, one always wonders if it would have been extended again.Guess not.

[Juniorz]

There were actually more than 9 addendum's

[Pink Jazz]

So, does anyone know which manufacturers submitted bids?  It was stated earlier in the thread that Bombardier and Kawasaki are proposing together, but I am not sure what is that supposed to mean.  If Bombardier and Kawasaki really submitted a joint bid, considering that Bombardier is facing major setbacks in other cities, I am not surprised that they would team up with another manufacturer, since perhaps Bombardier feels that it cannot handle the contract on its own.

[Busjack]

So, does anyone know which manufacturers submitted bids?  It was stated earlier in the thread that Bombardier and Kawasaki are proposing together, but I am not sure what is that supposed to mean.  If Bombardier and Kawasaki really submitted a joint bid, considering that Bombardier is facing major setbacks in other cities, I am not surprised that they would team up with another manufacturer, since perhaps Bombardier feels that it cannot handle the contract on its own.

If you want something official, you'll have to submit an FOIA request after the contract is awarded. That information is exempt while the negotiation process continues. People who made inquiries in response to the specs were noted earlier in the thread.

[BusHunter]

Too bad they wouldn't consider buying trains that are similar to the London Underground's S stock trains.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Underground_S7_and_S8_Stock

They look really modern and have features that CTA could benefit from like selective door operation. That could enable them to use 10 car trains and not need all 10 car platforms. The interior is really star trekky and modern with it's articulated design it would enable riders to freely flow between cars of a train. This actually does look like a modern train. Bombardier builds it and the S8 has some transverse seating. London Underground actually has several routes that are automated with no driver. I would be looking into that technology to see if a retrofit could be possible, thinking of the future, but the London Underground sounds like they just replace the signalling to achieve that. Interesting.