F40PH-2C/F40PHM-2C overhaul program

Discussion relating to commuter rail, light rail, and subway operations of the MBTA.

Moderators: CRail, sery2831

Re: F40PH-2C/F40PHM-2C overhaul program

Postby BandA » Sat Feb 04, 2017 1:55 am

Probably Hyundai-Rotem wants to build the next Tier-IV locomotives for the T
User avatar
BandA
 
Posts: 1901
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 11:47 am

Re: F40PH-2C/F40PHM-2C overhaul program

Postby mxdata » Sat Feb 04, 2017 8:38 am

Envision what it could have been like, if they had exercised the option for the additional MP36 locomotives when they held it, then proceeded to upgrade the GP40MC fleet to QES-III microprocessors.

Then they could have specified QES-III for the modernization of the 1025 and 1050 classes, and had three types of locomotives all with EMD engines and QES-III microprocessors, all supported by the same training programs and a very similar suite of technical publications.

But that would take all the fun out of it for the guys in the Training Center and on the Help Desk.

MX
"We Repair No Locomotive Before Its Time"
User avatar
mxdata
 
Posts: 1677
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 4:30 pm

Re: F40PH-2C/F40PHM-2C overhaul program

Postby F-line to Dudley via Park » Sat Feb 04, 2017 11:40 am

To be fair, the F40PH-3 & -3C rebuilds by MK Rail for Metra and Metro North incorporated Tier 0+ emissions and microprocessor controls that have performed pretty flawlessly in-service. But MK painstakingly followed the MPI blueprints from the last all-new F40 production batches, made as few changes as humanly possible for the modern updates, and did its homework on the systems integration. Then Metra and MNRR stuck exactly to script and made no deviations from that spec when they sent their units to MK for rebuild.

End result was a textbook case of Keep It Simple Stupid™ executing on its goal of modernizing the product while making it built to last. It will probably net more aftermarket -3C rebuilds from other roads when their late-gen -2C's and PHM's hit rebuild age because the -3C remans now project stable enough in large enough numbers @ Metra, etc. to have a guaranteed 20 additional years of parts & maint scale left in them. As much as employees hate risking a good thing with computer upgrades, the job that was done for the -3C's is what'll keep the F40 lineage firmly established in the Top 3-4 most oft-used North American passenger makes for a 5th decade instead of drawing down to imminent extinction like their rapidly disappearing passenger-Geep siblings or slow decline without major life extension like their F59 would-be successors.


Could you ever trust the T to state in plain English "We want X units rebuilt to -3C with not a single lugnut or line of code changed from the off-shelf spec"? No. The T has never ever refrained from customizing for customization's sake. That's what ruined the Geep remans, and that's what impaled MPI on the HSP design. Would anyone trust them to send the 1050's and 1025's out for a full rebuild and not get too cutesy with the special requests? Could they ever be trusted to not get seduced by an inexperienced builder over-promising and under-bidding out of desperation? No.

It isn't Not Invented Here syndrome so much as the same sort of brain drain afflicting so many critical agency functions: the internal project manager positions are unfilled, so procurement functions normally straightforward enough to be run in-house have to get contracted out. And then there's nobody adequately watching the proj. mgt. contractors, who then end up cooking up cooky specs to create extra billed work for themselves. They have a new top-level procurement guy who's been hired to straighten out this problem of lack of PM oversight perennially dragging them off-target when it comes to sticking to common-sense principles of "Keep It Simple Stupid", "Don't deviate from off-shelf scale unless absolutely necessary", and "Weight in favor of vendors with a proven track record". But the FCMB hasn't funded him yet to hire a full staff; until they do we're still dealing with too few watchers and too little steering. The guys in Procurement can have the absolute best intentions, but the same mistakes are structurally fated to repeat themselves if they are spread too thin to research their own decisions or watch their subcontractors. They're failing because they're flying blind a lot more than they're failing because they're intentionally overcomplicating things. Desperation more than corruption.


The last two power RFP's--the DMU's and the F40's--getting pulled weeks before completion hints strongly to the procurement dept. still not having the bare minimum human resources to process the information they're getting from the market and make informed decisions. The incoherence of the wording on the loco RFP--so vague as to not even state whether this 'IS' a real rebuild or just a duct tape job--never gave this one much of a chance to begin with. If the best-case scenario was Procurement coming back to the FCMB and going to bat for the generic uncustomized -3C spec, with reams of info backing up their reliability...how would they be able to make their case with clarity if there's nobody employed to crunch those numbers and articulate that case? It would've been fated to go the same way as other procurement decisions: cover for the short-staffing and brain drain by punting out to an outside specs engineering firm...not have enough bandwidth to watch them or keep a tight leash on grounds that rebuilds of generic power don't need special customization...watch as the opaqueness of that agreement starts accruing mission creep from specs vendor billing extra customization work for themselves and too many agency voices chiming in from all directions with special requests that aren't vetted by any big-picture 'deciders'...then wonder what happened when the end result is a late, over-budget integration mess. It's not enough that the new procurement czar wants to run a tighter ship that explicitly closes the loopholes that have allowed missteps like that to repeatedly happen.

It's on the FCMB to actually give him the resources to start enacting it. Right now it still seems like they're trying to prove some abstract point about oversight from a thinktank whitepaper instead of actually committing the resources for action. They wanted something quick and in-house, not obfuscated by a third-party specs eng. vendor. Well...not enough people in-house to even articulate what they need, so how can any vendor possibly parse the ultra-vague gobbledygook of the written RFP and create a bid package? The agency doesn't have enough bandwidth to state what it wants, and the FCMB has no idea what kind of price target they'll allow so the agency can clarify how extensive a job this'll be. How can any builder on the planet fill in those blanks for them?!? Even a mind-reader is useless on someone who can't make up their mind! We're going to keep having this sequence repeat itself until the Board gets it through their skulls that they have to spend the going rate on human capital before they can spend the going rate on sanely-managed physical plant capital. Still haven't punctured that membrane separating the abstract world from the real world. :(
F-line to Dudley via Park
 
Posts: 7252
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 7:26 pm
Location: North Cambridge

Re: F40PH-2C/F40PHM-2C overhaul program

Postby chrisf » Sat Feb 04, 2017 3:57 pm

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:To be fair, the F40PH-3 & -3C rebuilds by MK Rail for Metra and Metro North incorporated Tier 0+ emissions and microprocessor controls that have performed pretty flawlessly in-service. But MK painstakingly followed the MPI blueprints from the last all-new F40 production batches, made as few changes as humanly possible for the modern updates, and did its homework on the systems integration. Then Metra and MNRR stuck exactly to script and made no deviations from that spec when they sent their units to MK for rebuild.

I'm confused. MK Rail has been called MPI since it spun off from Morrison-Knudsen in 1996.
METRA doesn't have any -C F40s; their entire F40 fleet uses prime mover powered HEP like the original MBTA F40s, and none of METRA's F40s were rebuilt by MPI or MK. Also, all of METRA's were originally built by EMD, not MK/MPI.
The only factory F40PH-3c's are the 6 built in the late 90s for Altamont Commuter Express by MPI. Altamont's -3c's are modernized versions of the -2c's built for MBTA, Caltrain, Coaster, and Tri-Rail, but every other passenger F40PH was built on a shorter frame with HEP driven off the prime mover. Units such as NJ Transit's and Metro-North's are all custom rebuilds with an auxiliary HEP alternator system crammed onto the back of the standard F40's short frame with a carbody extension to cover the extra equipment.
MBTA's last order of -2c's came from MK, but were built to EMD spec. Perhaps this is the source of your confusion.
Even when the first -2c's were built by EMD in 1987-88, they were unique, as everyone else was still buying the standard F40PH/F40PH-2, with METRA's "Winnebago" units an obvious exception. So, MBTA has a long history of ordering nonstandard equipment; it just happens that they got lucky and got some reliable units out of the -2c.
chrisf
 
Posts: 286
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 9:35 pm

Re: F40PH-2C/F40PHM-2C overhaul program

Postby F-line to Dudley via Park » Sat Feb 04, 2017 11:17 pm

chrisf wrote:
F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:To be fair, the F40PH-3 & -3C rebuilds by MK Rail for Metra and Metro North incorporated Tier 0+ emissions and microprocessor controls that have performed pretty flawlessly in-service. But MK painstakingly followed the MPI blueprints from the last all-new F40 production batches, made as few changes as humanly possible for the modern updates, and did its homework on the systems integration. Then Metra and MNRR stuck exactly to script and made no deviations from that spec when they sent their units to MK for rebuild.

I'm confused. MK Rail has been called MPI since it spun off from Morrison-Knudsen in 1996.


You're right. It was Progress Rail that did the rebuilds. I brainfarted on that and said MK when I really meant Progress. Progress is doing all the Metra rebuilds and did all the MNRR rebuilds. Mea culpa.

METRA doesn't have any -C F40s; their entire F40 fleet uses prime mover powered HEP like the original MBTA F40s, and none of METRA's F40s were rebuilt by MPI or MK. Also, all of METRA's were originally built by EMD, not MK/MPI.


Metra's rebuilds are F40PH-3 (again, by Progress...not MK per my brainfart). -3's vs. -3C's was fully mentioned in my original post...-3's the non-generator variant of the base rebuild spec, -3C's the generator variant. Obviously a -3C is the only relevant consideration for the T's fleet, so -3's aren't germane to the conversation beyond a footnote mention.

The only factory F40PH-3c's are the 6 built in the late 90s for Altamont Commuter Express by MPI. Altamont's -3c's are modernized versions of the -2c's built for MBTA, Caltrain, Coaster, and Tri-Rail, but every other passenger F40PH was built on a shorter frame with HEP driven off the prime mover. Units such as NJ Transit's and Metro-North's are all custom rebuilds with an auxiliary HEP alternator system crammed onto the back of the standard F40's short frame with a carbody extension to cover the extra equipment.


Not a relevant distinction. Yes, the MNRR units got their carbodies modded for the HEP generator compartment in the last rebuild 2 decades ago from Screamers to -2CAT spec. But they received the same stock components as the last all-new generator-equipped units when the -3C rebuild took place, including change from CAT to Cummins generators. There are no longer any component differences between a factory-built -3C and a -2CAT rebuilt to -3C spec...just slightly different placement on the frame. Frame differentiation isn't anything new to EMD's; passenger GP40-2's kept mostly consistent component specs too amid lots of frame mods and differences in frame lengths from factory- vs. rebuild-installed generator compartments.

MBTA's last order of -2c's came from MK, but were built to EMD spec. Perhaps this is the source of your confusion.
Even when the first -2c's were built by EMD in 1987-88, they were unique, as everyone else was still buying the standard F40PH/F40PH-2, with METRA's "Winnebago" units an obvious exception. So, MBTA has a long history of ordering nonstandard equipment; it just happens that they got lucky and got some reliable units out of the -2c.


As above, MK vs. Progress confusion clarified.

EMD's Cummins HEP generator configuration paired with the same prime mover had already been in-service on NJT's GP40PH's for 5 years after NJT upgraded those units from steam to electric generator in '83. There was nothing "unique" or "nonstandard" about it when the T placed its order; that was the default vanilla EMD component packaging for a generator-equipped passenger unit. Nor did they "get lucky" as if that packaging appearing for the first time in an F40 cowl was any sort of shot in the dark. Comparing the -2C's to the overcustomization-gone-mad that led to the Frankengeeps and HSP's is highly misleading. The agency was not imposing a major design change on EMD by requesting a HEP generator, or taking an outsized risk. The T was merely the first to plunk down for a fresh order of them in F40 packaging. First ≠ "nonstandard". 20 years ago they also could've been "first" to factory-order the GE Genesis with a HEP generator, but they pooh-poohed the GE's and chose to go off the deep end with the Frankengeeps instead. Was that also a case of all unknowns being equal? Of course not. GE always offered a factory option for Gennies with generators, whether anyone was interested in purchasing or not. No one was trying to invent proprietary microprocessor hacks with craptacular mid-90's computers grafted onto mid-70's EMD freight converts until the T thought it was a swell idea to go down that rabbit hole. Being first past the post is not remotely the same thing as going (way) off-script and getting lucky or unlucky.
F-line to Dudley via Park
 
Posts: 7252
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 7:26 pm
Location: North Cambridge

Re: F40PH-2C/F40PHM-2C overhaul program

Postby mxdata » Mon Mar 13, 2017 8:18 pm

The RFP was taken down a couple weeks ago, before the due date for proposals to be submitted.

MX
"We Repair No Locomotive Before Its Time"
User avatar
mxdata
 
Posts: 1677
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 4:30 pm

Re: F40PH-2C/F40PHM-2C overhaul program

Postby sery2831 » Tue Mar 14, 2017 1:54 pm

Yes, a new RFP will be posted soon.
Moderator: MBTA Rail Operations
User avatar
sery2831
 
Posts: 5136
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 2:15 pm
Location: Manchester, NH

Re: F40PH-2C/F40PHM-2C overhaul program

Postby mxdata » Tue Mar 14, 2017 3:40 pm

Hopefully this time they will weed out the errors and contradictions that were evident in the last RFP.

MX
"We Repair No Locomotive Before Its Time"
User avatar
mxdata
 
Posts: 1677
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 4:30 pm

Re: F40PH-2C/F40PHM-2C overhaul program

Postby GP40MC1118 » Tue Mar 21, 2017 12:12 am

This was posted on the Diesel Data List earlier tonight. Note that Marc 66 will live on, even if the MBTA didn't think so. And surprise, surprise...no HSP46's orders! Congrats MPI!

GO TRANSIT
Production continues on 16 new GO MP40PHT-T4 667-682 (SN 2573-01>2573- 16). According to two sources, the model designation was changed because the 54 in MP54AC was based on the gross horsepower of both engines, and the 40 represented the 4,000 traction horsepower commonly used. It is believed that the change might have been driven by GO wanting to keep the new units in the same "class" as the rest of the MP40 fleet. This is somewhat born out by the fact that the road numbers continue uninterrupted.

SUNRAIL
MPI is remanufacturing new CFR loco 110, an MP32PH-Q from former MARC 66, nee B&O GP40 4062, SN 38542, FN 7356-8, Blt. 11-71

MNCR
MPI was just awarded a contract to re manufacture 12 MNCR/CDOT BL20GH 110-115 & 125-130 over the next four years. The major work element will be to replace the Tier 2 MTU engine with a Tier 3 Cummins QSK50.

Dave
GP40MC1118
 
Posts: 3314
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 8:06 pm

Re: F40PH-2C/F40PHM-2C overhaul program

Postby John_Perkowski » Tue Mar 21, 2017 12:32 pm

Just call BNSF Topeka Shops and ask for a quote to remanufacture an F40PH to -3 standards, then give Mr Buffett's railroad the job. Mischief managed.

Disclaimer: Long term UP and BH positions.
~John Perkowski: Moderator: General Discussion: Locomotives, Rolling Stock, and Equipment
Assistant Administrator: Railroad.net/forums
Please don't feed the spammers! If you see spam, please notify a Moderator
User avatar
John_Perkowski
 
Posts: 4484
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 5:12 pm
Location: Off the Q main near Parkville MO

Re: F40PH-2C/F40PHM-2C overhaul program

Postby mxdata » Sun Apr 16, 2017 8:21 pm

The MBTA posted the new RFP this week.

MXDATA
"We Repair No Locomotive Before Its Time"
User avatar
mxdata
 
Posts: 1677
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 4:30 pm

Re: F40PH-2C/F40PHM-2C overhaul program

Postby mxdata » Mon Apr 17, 2017 5:31 pm

A read-through of the Request For Proposals showed that many of the previous errors are still there.

MX
"We Repair No Locomotive Before Its Time"
User avatar
mxdata
 
Posts: 1677
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 4:30 pm

Re: F40PH-2C/F40PHM-2C overhaul program

Postby GP40MC1118 » Thu Apr 20, 2017 8:58 am

The first BET overhaul - the 1051 - was released yesterday. Paired with the 1075, it went
on a test run in the late afternoon to Waltham and back. Later went to Wachusett on the
6:25pm No. 425.

D
GP40MC1118
 
Posts: 3314
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 8:06 pm

Re: F40PH-2C/F40PHM-2C overhaul program

Postby F-line to Dudley via Park » Fri May 05, 2017 12:48 pm

1139 sitting in Braintree Yard this afternoon. Fore River done with that repair job already?
F-line to Dudley via Park
 
Posts: 7252
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 7:26 pm
Location: North Cambridge

Re: F40PH-2C/F40PHM-2C overhaul program

Postby nomis » Fri May 05, 2017 3:20 pm

Yup, picked up this afternoon.
Moderator: Metro-North (with CDOT), Photography & Video

Avatar: An overnight trip on Girard Ave. stumbles upon 6 PCC's and an LRV stuck within two blocks.
User avatar
nomis
 
Posts: 2025
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:52 pm
Location: MRS 43 (was QA 9 & QB 2)

PreviousNext

Return to Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: caduceus and 7 guests