Hey, there! Log in / Register
New commuter-rail locomotives no longer prone to catching on fire
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Why did they buy a new design?
It sounds like the MBTA purchased a new design instead of going with an existing "off the shelf" locomotive that other regional companies have been using for years and presumably wouldn't have these sorts of problems.
Why is the T so inclined to buy custom or first-generation equipment?
Launch Customer
They were the launch customer for a newer, more efficient model. Obviously there will be some teething issues with any new product. It's not going to be a one and done model. Lots of other authority's will be buying these.
No, they won't. MPI has zero
No, they won't. MPI has zero interest in ever producing another HSP-46.
Also, they aren't newer and more efficient. In fact they don't even meet current emissions regs. That's a big part of why they were delivered to the MBTA before all the bugs were worked out - they needed to deliver them to the T by 12/31/14 in order to avoid having to meet current emissions regulations.
The MBTA has a huge fetish for overcustomization of equipment they buy, and the HSP-46's arose out of this. Rather than buying off-the-shelf, MPI agreed to build something custom the T had come up with, and, typically, it has come back to bite the T in the butt.
Typically?
Has there ever been a documented case where the T was better off going custom? (Except where there is no choice, like the Green Line.)
I've been in this town for a while and I've never once heard a good thing about new equipment the T has purchased EXCEPT for standardized things like normal busses.
I didn't say "typically it
I didn't say "typically it comes back to bite the T in the butt"
I said "typically, it has come back to bite the T in the butt"
As in, "as is typical". As in, like always.
I can't think of a single instance where it was beneficial, except, like you said, for when they didn't have a choice.
for some, I suspect...
For some purchases, I suspect the reason is that the MBTA infrastructure (track, tunnels, switches, etc.) are nowhere near modern spec. As a result, modern equipment simply can't operate on our old infrastructure without custom mods.
It's chicken and egg. Even if we did have the money to bring the infrastructure up to modern standards on an entire line all at once, we'd then have rolling stock that didn't align with the infrastructure! This is simplistic of course, and I am by no means an expert...
Well, good thing you admit to
Well, good thing you admit to not being an expert because none of that made any sense, and has nothing to do with the T's fetish for highly custom orders. The commuter rail is the exact same as anywhere else (just not electrified), and the reason for the custom subway/green line rolling stock orders is mainly due to tunnel constraints/tight turns that aren't found in newer systems.
That was my point...
- me
- you
And yet you wrote
- you
Good grief man. I wrote that for some purchases (not specifically commuter rail) the problem is track, tunnels, switches, etc. Then you wrote that for subway/green line rolling stock orders (e.g. some purchases) the T buys custom due to tunnel constraints that don't exist in more modern systems.
You flat out 100 percent agreed with me, immediately after you wrote that "none of [what I wrote] made any sense".
Christ on a cracker.
Not for Comuter Rail
That is true for the trolly and subway lines but it isn't true for the CR which is standard and sometimes shared with freight, etc.
Heavy Rail
As long as we agree that commuter rail and freight can share the same tracks - OK. Subway trains (light rail) cannot share the same tracks as heavy rail due to FRA crash requirements and standards. Federal Law.
The T thinks it is a special
The T thinks it is a special little snowflake that needs every piece of equipment it buys to be custom-made specifically for it. Thus they always buy custom equipment. For the rapid transit lines it sometimes makes sense due to clearance/curve radius/etc. restrictions, but for the commuter rail it's completely unnecessary.
Nope
The T has had this condition forced on them as the result of actions of the legislature, which you help elect.
And as a result of "force it to fail" behavior sponsored by Charlie and his "Pioneer Foundation" thinking (a subsidiary of Koch Industries).
Keep drinking that Flint water and running your lead-addled brain, though!
The legislature does not
The legislature does not write equipment specs. 9/10 legislators wouldn't even recognize any T equipment if it wasn't painted.
The legislature does saddle the T with stupid requirements like "must be made in MA", but the legislature does not mandate that the T cannot buy off-the-shelf commuter rail locomotives.
...what?
Okay but where in
Okay but where in Massachusetts is the MBTA supposed to buy off the shelf items from? Anyone?
What was the off the shelf alternative?
Is/was there any off-the-shelf locomotive that met the T's power need and the FRA's crashworthiness standards?
To be fair, the answer to
To be fair, the answer to this question is complicated. There was a bit of a lull in domestic passenger locomotive production, that is partly the result of changing federal emissions standards, and more the result of there not being enough of a market for passenger diesels in North America to keep production lines running continuously.
The T's other options would be to order a rebuild, like the MP32PH-Q's that SunRail in Florida bought, or to wait a little bit longer for EMD's (the former GM subsidiary that made most of the T's existing fleet) new offering, the F125, which was ordered by other commuter railroads including Southern California's Metrolink, or order Siemens' Charger, which was ordered by All Aboard Florida and a consortium of states for Amtrak corridor trains.
All of those options would meet FRA crashworthiness standards, and would be more than enough power for the T.
Let's not forget why the T bought these particular locomotives
And why they took so long to get here.
The T originally signed a contract with a Spanish locomotive company, but then Idaho's congressional delegation got on the case and convinced the Federal Transit Administration this would violate a "Buy American" law even though the Spanish units would be built in Kentucky. So the T signed a contract with the locomotive company based in Idaho.
Then again the Spanish
Then again the Spanish locomotives which were bought by New Jersey have been the problem children there for most of the past decade. It's defensible to suggest that the T dodged a bullet there.
No Alternative
The T originally wanted to purchase known-good design locomotives out of the country. However, MPI invoked the "Buy America Act" that says that final assembly has to take place in the USA.
The subway purchase from China RR is similar. They would have needed to meet the federal Buy America clause but the state also added the Buy Massachusetts clause to force them to be built here.
So once MPI invoked Buy America, the T had to drop the plan to buy off shore since that would require a manufacturer to build a facility on US soil and no one was interested at the time.
That ASSURED that MPI would get the contract since they are the ONLY passenger locomotive manufacturer of NEW locomotives in the USA on US soil. Clever, eh? The other manufacturer, EMD only builds 6-axle freight locomotives.
So the T was forced into buying these units. No choice really if they wanted to have anything that worked at all before the older rolling stock finally disintegrated.
Erm, both EMD and Siemens are
Erm, both EMD and Siemens are currently building domestic passenger locomotives in the US.
EMD is building its F125 in La Grange, IL, and Siemens its Charger in Sacramento, CA
I have an uncle...
... who worked for EMD for decades (long ago now) -- and have all sorts of spiffy train posters (packed away somewhere).
No of fthe shelf
There is no such thing as an off-the-shelf locomotive. Locomotives are usually designed for specific purposes and also to meet the need to be married to existing equipment for seamless operations. So the new MP locomotives for the MBTA has to be customized to be used with existing coaches and with other locomotives in case an older one failed and it had to be attached.
First, federal law required that a new design was mandated to meet Tier-3 emissions standards so anything the T was running could not be duplicated. The F40 units have been rebuilt at least once. The GP40 units were actually purchased used after a rebuild. They used to be used in freight service in Canada.
The new locomotives were delivered "on paper" meaning there was still assembly being done but no longer at the main manufacturing plant. The units were moved to off site locations where the bugs and changes were to be ironed out. One such place is in Worcester at the P&W Railroad shops.
Had they not accepted the locomotives on paper, anything delivered after Dec 31 had to meet Tier-4 emissions standards, and that design is barely off the drawing board. A few are in production for heavy freight railroads, but the design looses horse power in exchange for emissions reductions. The result is that for some very long trains they will have to add a locomotive for the needed pull power. The result is more emissions (particulates). Even if they ran shorter trains they are still doubling up on power to do the work.
The MBTA locomotives design was also not "off the shelf" since few railroads had locomotives that could meet the standards. In fact, the original order from the MBTA was promised Tier-4 standards but they had to accept a downgraded model to Tier-3 because the manufacturer was not able to come up with a Tier-4 working design in time. As noted, even the other sole manufacturer of locomotives is just now coming out with a working model and production line units are just going onto the assembly line.
It's A Shame The Ⓣ Rejects Electrifying Any Of The Commuter Rail
its not that they do
It just electrification costs money to do that. Something the T has very little of these days.
They Refuse To Use Electric Trains Even On The Providence Line
...which is mostly but not
...which is mostly but not completely electrified. None of the layovers are electrified. None of Boston Engine Terminal or its connections to the south side network (i.e. Grand Junction & Worcester line) are electrified. None of the RI stations past Providence are electrified.
These are not negligible costs.
But once you electify
your operational and maintenance costs for the trains are lower. Not to mention that electric trains have longer running times between major overhauls.
But the "penny wise - pound foolish' MBTA management doesn't look at the bigger picture.
Adorable!
Positive spin
Thanks for coming up with a headline looking for the silver lining, Adam.
$220M and only a 2 year warranty?
For that money 10,000 cars can be bought, all with much better warrantees!
Le sigh - why do I even bother
With the #604 train from West Roxbury being late almost every single day last week due to "mechanical problems", it's no wonder The Powers That Be are finally admitting the problems.
Yet, I still take the commuter rail... Le sigh
"The Needham Line is the Rodney Dangerfield of the rail lines - it gets no respect...."
and...
...is it full of bulgy-eyed, sweaty guys...?
Well, the good news is with
Well, the good news is with increasing traffic on the NEC and bottlenecks on the tracks further in, eventually the Needham line will be unable to meet ANY kind of service and they'll have to discontinue it. So you won't need to worry anymore :) :)
Is Conservation Law Foundation outraged?
They are foes of pollution and CO2 emissions, and yet they didn't oppose the rush to purchase higher polluting locomotives that will be spewing more toxins for decades? Wouldn't they champion the green option to rent more engines short term until the better technology was available?
There's only so much bandwidth
CLF (and it's donors) and the vox populi and the politicians only have so much bandwidth. This means that there are lots of things that the CLF would prefer play out differently, but they've got to deploy their limited resources efficiently.
Fighting the fight you propose is remarkably low on the list. My guess is that CLF calculated that the delta emissions relatively small, the fight relatively large, and therefore chose to deploy it's efforts elsewhere.
I was using sarcasm because CLF is just anti-car
Its seems CLF is so pro-transit, they don't care if trains are belching out pollutants and CO2 as long as taxpayers buy more of them.
blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
CLF is pro sustainable city. Boston wasn't built for cars and the retrofit has utterly failed. They aren't anti-car per se - it is just that cars don't fit in Boston and more cars cannot fit in Boston. The CLF simply recognizes this reality - that single occupant car commuting does not work for the city and never will be able to move in or out the number of people needed to keep the city healthy.
Yep, CLF is so pro-transit
They allowed the Watertown Line to be closed. Then they allowed the Arborway Line to be closed.
Need I say more.
Professional outrageurs.
Are they ever not outraged?