Alstom CTDOT Single Level Passenger “Adessia” Coach Order

daybeers wrote: ↑Fri Aug 11, 2023 6:30 pm $5.25m per car is insane.

Alon Levy thinks so too.

"Connecticut Pays Double for Substandard Trains"
https://pedestrianobservations.com/2023 ... rd-trains/

For EMUs with their guts ripped out, and weight added for the now outdated 1950s FRA weight requirements.

A quote from the article:

Alstom and Connecticut recently announced an order for 60 unpowered coaches, to cost $315 million. The cost – $5.25 million per 25 meter long car – is about twice as high as the norm for powered cars (electric multiple units, or EMUs), and close to the cost of an electric locomotive in Europe. It goes without saying that top officials at the Connecticut Departmemarknt of Transportation (CTDOT) need to lose their jobs over this.

The frustrating thing is that unlike the construction costs of physical infrastructure, the acquisition costs of rolling stock were not traditionally at a premium in the United States. Metro-North’s EMUs, the M8s, were acquired in 2006 for $760.3 million covering 300 cars (see PDF-p. 16); a subsequent order in 2013 for the LIRR and Metro-North was $1.83 billion for 676 cars. But then over the 2010s, the MTA’s commuter railways lost their ability to procure rolling stock at such cost. The $5.25 million/car cost is not even an artifact of recent inflation – the cost explosion was visible already on the eve of corona.

It appears that some of the trains are on their way to the fully wired Penn Station Access project, expanding Metro-North service to Penn Station via the line currently used only by Amtrak (today, Metro-North only serves Grand Central). The excuse I’ve heard is that it’s happening too fast for Metro-North or CTDOT to order proper EMUs. In reality, Penn Station Access has been under construction and previously under design for many years, and the regular replacement of the rolling stock on the other lines is also known well in advance.
...

Has anyone provided what the additional 313 cars would cost to produce? I haven’t noticed it in any press releases or articles to date, and it would be helpful to understand how much R&D is built into this number.

Siemens may have given them a “we can’t fit you work into our schedule” timeline or price that was even more than $5.25mil/car. Maybe once their 2nd factory in the Southeast is up and running would they be able to handle the workload.

I agree CDOT is definitely taking the FRA complaint engineering bill on the chin for such a small order and don’t think the state coffers of budget surpluses and reducing CT service levels heats them in the court of public opinion.

The cost of unpowered coaches is getting some criticism: CTExaminer

Asked Why Connecticut Pays Double For $315M Rail Cars, CTDOT Offers No Answer

HARTFORD – Connecticut’s announcement earlier this month that it is buying 60 new rail cars expected to arrive in 2026 touted spacious two-by-two seats, foldable tables, reliable Wi-Fi, and charging ports.

The new rail cars for the Hartford Line and New Haven Line branches, if you ask the Connecticut Department of Transportation, are delivering the amenities that customers want.

But if you ask Alon Levy what stood out about the deal, it was the price tag: $315 million for 60 un-powered coach cars built by Alstom. The well-known transit writer and author of the blog Pedestrian Observations has been a frequent critic of American approaches to rail investment.

At a cost of $5.25 million per 25-meter car, the un-powered coaches are about twice the cost of electric powered cars in Europe, said Levy.
...

Some observations:

1. 2x2 seating is awesome.
2. I wonder why they didn't go double-decker
3. There are no center doors
4. .Whither the Mafersa and remainder of the diversified fleet? Keep for future expansion? Sell? Return the leased cars, of course.
5. CT's fleet of Shoreliners are TIRED. Although the cost seems extreme, this is long overdue
6. Will they operate in pool service on the branches? I'm sure CTDOT doesn't want to see them running on the Harlem and Hudson with Shoreliners still rotating into the branches

I'm still not sure why they didn't partner with MN for the shoreliner replacement, or even go for Siemens. And the 313 figure is also strange if they just want to equip the branches and cdot commuter rail

ConstanceR46 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 05, 2023 5:54 am I'm still not sure why they didn't partner with MN for the shoreliner replacement, or even go for Siemens. And the 313 figure is also strange if they just want to equip the branches and cdot commuter rail

That's one way keep costs down, partner with other agencies, to do mass purchases.

The 313 is probably a negotiated cap on the number of options that other agencies can purchase as part of this sale. MN did the same thing with the dual mode Siemens Chargers they are getting, the options are way more than MN could ever use, but cover the possible needs of CTDOT, LIRR, NYDOT, and Amtrak.

Assuming it's that and Alstom will angle to MNCR, that'd be 184. Add on the LIRR's C3s and they'd need the full order, plus 5 more to bring the total to 318.. Is Alstom angling to try and nab a Shoreliner and C3 replacement at once?

As much as I am partial to the continued use of single levels, I do ask why would MNRR or LIRR buy single levels at this point when it’s been expected for them to buy multilevels?

The C3s with 2-2 seating can seat 137-143 people. The Comet IIs with 3-2 seating could seat up to 131. These new cars with 2-2 seating couldn’t possibly seat more than 95. That’s a major loss of seating capacity. And with ridership levels recovering towards what was seen during the pre-COVID era when the trains from Poughkeepsie were standing room only by the time they got to GCT… again, it just begs the question.

The only other service these cars would make sense for would be the Montauk Branch and KO-Greenport since they would provide more adequate luggage storage space for the Hamptons and North Fork travelers. But that would make for a truly captive fleet unless the LIRR was willing to have the Oyster Bay and Port Jeff trains be crammed like sardines.

Now if MNRR does go all in on the Alstom cars I’d imagine the interior design would be tweaked for 3-2 seating. And if these indeed would be for the Hell Gate Line service (would explain the ample Siemens Charger options just for MNRR alone) as has been suggested that would explain the 313 number as I suspect a similar amount of MUs -minus the amount of base order Alstom coaches- would have to have been procured for the East Bronx trains.

Makes more sense.

Interesting change of title. It appears Alstom is bringing the Multilevels, X'trapolis, and these guys under a single brand name.

ST Saint wrote: ↑Thu Aug 10, 2023 9:41 am I'm sure we'll know more later on, but they do look suspiciously close to Bombardier M7 shells, so I have to wonder if they are mostly based off that from the rendering.

Alstom==Bombardier, M7 blueprints. Does anyone know if Kawasaki M8s and M9s share ANY parts, windows, door motors, PA/CIS electronics, trucks, traction electronics (I think all M7-M9s are Mitsubishi, parts compatible traction?) plastic moldings/screw holes/wire connectors, driver console gauges, cast and milled steel structural steel members with M7s, or the M8s and M9s are clean slate, no spare parts compatibility with M7s?

I know the MTA owned the copyright and intellectual property to the M2-M6 blue prints and could bid out the blueprints to any builder, it wasn't like a Comet car that is locked to PS/Bomb forever.

ConstanceR46 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 13, 2023 6:44 pm It's an interesting choice to get 313, but utterly strange as to why they're going with single-levels of a custom-"tailored" design. In general i kinda was on the team that single-levels were on the way out - perhaps these "custom" cars are an intent to launch a competitor on the regional market for the Siemens sets?

Wheelchair NGOs are extra active in the NYC area, if CT/MN/MTA buys ML cars, motorized wheelchair protesters will picket infront (or in) of Hartford, and tell the riot police the battery in their wheelchair is dead when the police say they are under arrest for failure to disperse. See https://twitter.com/NationalADAPT/media

ML cars have much higher dwell time, negotiating stairs, etc. Only GCT and NH have track space to spend 8-12 minutes to load/unload a train. Stamford and SoNO can't originate or terminate MLs because of dwell. Watch NJTs or C3 boarding at Penn or Jamaica, it as slow as loading a 737.

NH2060 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 14, 2023 12:08 am.
2. No one is making DMUs compatible with high level platforms and even so they don’t allow for fleet flexibility vs engines and coaches.

Wrong Nippon Sharyo DMU FRA/Cali/Toronto. But CT Rail wants their SLE/Springfield to NY Penn, then thru run no transfers, to Harrisburg dreams. DMUs can never go into GCT/NY Penn. Explains the 2x2 seating, this fleet is long haul, not MTA spec high density commuter. Conference tables for example, NY MTA would never in a million years have tables in their rolling stock, and would rip out the tables first thing, if its 2nd hand coaches.

Buying Siemens won't happen because AECOM and Cesar Vergara want their contract to "consult"a new design from scratch, and CDOT handed off the engineering to the MTA for the new cars, not Amtrak (remember CDOT and Amtrak have bad blood, Herzog runs hartford line). There is no "buy CT" law unlike NYS, (unless fed $ involved which prohibits buy NY), or MWBE, I hope not, someone post the CT RFP if any, or was this a no-bid contract?

Siemens (Amtrak cartel), CRRC (3rd rail politics), Alstom, Kawasaki are the 4 choices. Hyundai Rotem/Nippon Sharyo/CAF liquidated their USA factories AFAIK. Stadler like Siemens won't play with spec change/change order to hell/make profit in litigation games like MTA loves. Honeycomb aluminum? Welding that? That would be a IAM/TWU strike. Bid rigging with massive subsides, for Brookville, to make FRA coaches, feels like another Colorado Railcar, and they are a real business, not a VC startup, Brookville won't bend to NYC uniqueness, or risk bankruptcy after litigation.

Remember Siemens Venture has stairs in the frame, whether the buyer wants them or not (they can be buyer covered with sheet metal and invisible), but the "Venture" is disqualified immediately under NYC logic. Although Ventures can, and are ordered as single cars, Siemens (and Amtrak I think) prefers accordion perm coupled trainsets.

Brightline/Amtrak/RSVP/dynamic ticket pricing RRs are fine with perm coupled trainsets, just like UK railroads. Too many riders? No standies policy? Just raise the fare on the TVM/app until Uber or American Airlines/Delta is cheaper, no such thing as too many riders. Amtrak I think secretly offer bumping/denied boarding "first class" use any time corporate tickets valid for 1 year, but they are $1K tickets. UK RRs, even commuter/short haul, use anytime, never expire, super-peak tickets, are most expensive way to ride. Varying train length day by day, is a crazy concept in the UK. This isn't MNRR/LIRR/DC Metro (abandoned). CityTicket slightly is following UK standards of dynamic pricing or reservation mandatory or ticket no-reuse biz strategy. CTRail/MTA Rail wants their variable length option. I guess a Venture is disqualified if it contains provisions (steel tabs/draft gear) for semi-perm coupled on the frame, and single cars are "extra steel" vs a native ground up single car design.

This Alstom design could be the future MNRR/LIRR coach fleet, its just the MTA won't reveal it yet for legal reasons. C3s were an ECONOMIC choice to "right size" the LIRR fleet in 1980s, not a capacity choice. Alon or 2nd ave sagas or airlineflyer or LIRRToday wrote the C3s fleet LOST seats vs the P72 fleet on cutover day. Everyone on RR NET is talking about MLs being for capacity, but forgets C3s were not about capacity, but budget cuts. Only NJT and the MLV are about capacity. C3s were not. CDOT also is a beggar for GCM/GCT/NYP slots, AFAIK NJT MLVs can't go into GCM. A DM loco could take CTRail coaches into GCM, which might be the end game 10 years from now. CDOT in its studies already writes, all PSA trains, will be slots removed from GCT, and MNRR refuses to authorize any extra slots on New Rochelle-NH line, because the NHL is a 2 track railroad 20 hours a day, and 3 track railroad for 2 hours in the morning, and 2 hours in the evening. PSA is an ALBANY project, to serve NY voters, it wasn't budgeted or proposed as a benefit to CT voters. Correct me if I am wrong and CDOT is paying for PSA construction. CTRail to NYC is proposed as using active or reserved Amtrak slots on NHL, its not proposed as a MNRR slot. Since GCM is a "bust" and "failure" for LI voters, it smells like Albany will only offer GCM slots to CTRail, or Amtrak will offer its NHL slots (Keystone/NYP NH origin short turn regionals) to SLE/Hartford. Hence 2x2 seats, no trainsets (set out a broken car, in the deep south).

Well, that was quite the monologue...