M9a RFP ??

Discussion of the past and present operations of the Long Island Rail Road.

Moderator: Liquidcamphor

M9a RFP ??

Postby DutchRailnut » Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:34 am

If Conductors are in charge, why are they promoted to be Engineer???

Retired Triebfahrzeugführer
User avatar
Posts: 21422
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: released from Stalag 13

Re: M9a RFP ??

Postby deandremouse » Mon Dec 04, 2017 8:23 am

Kawasaki loose the contract or is this a supplement? Interesting they’re opening this up to other car builders. CRRC could try to bid and undercut Kawasaki.
-DeAndre W.
Volunteer Conductor
(MTA) Railroads
Electrical Engineering Tech
Posts: 595
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:46 pm

Re: M9a RFP ??

Postby F-line to Dudley via Park » Mon Dec 04, 2017 8:51 am

deandremouse wrote:Kawasaki loose the contract or is this a supplement? Interesting they’re opening this up to other car builders. CRRC could try to bid and undercut Kawasaki.

It's the supplement since it specifically states the M9A.

The different funding sources probably bureaucratically force them to reissue an RFP as if this were a separate order. Kawasaki has the suffix-less M9 order, and that has not changed at all (there would've long ago been massive news coverage if anything were imploding there akin to Sumitromo/Nippon-Sharyo with the Amtrak bi-levels). So this is theirs to rubber-stamp.

The only rumor of a change in the master plan came from the Amtrak forum a couple weeks ago with some employee saying MNRR was considering a move to bi-level EMU's instead of LIRR M9 clones...but that has not been verified by any other official or unofficial sources so it can't be taken at face value. The only vector for making that change would be if MNRR's share of base-order M9's were somehow traded to LIRR for the M9A options and this RFP were used to re-bid out for NJT MultiLevel EMU clones with third rail to physically substitute the design for MNRR. But somebody would have to run a ton of political favors to somehow square the stark difference in funding sources in order to make that bureaucratically work. The suffix-less vs. -A split in the order is all about funding and not MTA road assignments so it's extremely improbable that they could make the legalese of a re-segmented order work at all for that purpose...much less work at all at this late a date.
F-line to Dudley via Park
Posts: 7359
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 7:26 pm
Location: North Cambridge

Re: M9a RFP ??

Postby BuddR32 » Wed Dec 06, 2017 2:31 pm

The M-9A is a separate procurement, they really should put it out as M-11 as it can be a completely different and non-compatible car with the M-9. The major difference is the funding, the M-9 KRC cars are funded by NYS, whereas the cars billed as M-9A are funded by the Federal Government as part of the FTA- East Side Access funding.
Posts: 128
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2014 2:14 pm

Re: M9a RFP ??

Postby 452 Card » Thu Dec 07, 2017 5:08 pm

I can add with certainty that the C3 prototype LIRR bi-level coaches were tested and found to fit the Third avenue tunnel and is approaches. MNCR Bi-level MUs would be a viable choice, if not taller that 14'3" tall. This testing is ancient history a la 1991.
Wheelslip! Back to the Barn.
452 Card
Posts: 301
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 8:25 am

Return to Long Island Rail Road (LIRR)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Norton and 5 guests