MBTA's MPI HSP-46 Locomotives

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

Moderators: CRail, sery2831

Postby RailBus63 » Mon Jun 02, 2008 3:15 pm

This thread is going way off-topic ...
User avatar
RailBus63
 
Posts: 1872
Joined: Tue May 04, 2004 1:48 pm

Postby diburning » Mon Jun 02, 2008 7:55 pm

RailBus63 wrote:This thread is going way off-topic ...


not really. This is the locomotive order discussion thread. Technically, the 2 genset switchers are "on order"
User avatar
diburning
 
Posts: 2970
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 7:37 pm
Location: Practicing safe CSX by using Three-Step Protection

Postby Veristek » Mon Jun 02, 2008 9:10 pm

paulrail wrote:That's B S,.... the MBTA is constantly looking to the future;.....look at the list of their capital projects for the next 5, 10, and 20 years. It's easy to criticize the T but there are hundreds of cities who would give anything to have as comprehensive transit system that the MBTA runs.

No foresight huh? :( ... Why do you suppose the T has analyzed it's specific needs for a new "custom" locomotive and put out a specific RFP for companies to see if they can furnish the demands of what the T wants and needs in a commuter passenger locomotive ?

Give me a break;........it's so easy to sit behind a computer and critisize an overall, great transit system with sweeping generalaities, broadbrushing the whole system as "not looking to the future." Grrr......

Yes, I realize the T is not "perfect' as everyone would like to have it be.

Paul


The list of lack of foresights I'm referring to is as follows...

1. Opening Greenbush at a time when supplies (locos, cars, etc.) were scarce for the MBTA.

2. Tearing up the A Line in Watertown.

3. Cutting the E Line from Arborway to Heath Street.

4. Buying Rotem bi-levels when they could have bought proven and durable Kawaski designs that have already shown to work well (the 700's and 900's).

5. Contracting Breda to construct the Type 8's instead of Siemens or another company with more experience with light rail designs.

These are to name a few. I am indeed grateful that there does exist a MBTA for my public transportation needs, but there are some certain things that the MBTA should have had a lot more foresight to do right, since it's gonna bite the MBTA in the ass 5, 10, 15 years from now. I hope the MBTA goes and buys reliable locomotives that are *PROVEN* to work instead of buying the cheapest locos available or untested designs. We don't need to have the "new" locos break down or become maintainence nightmares in just a few years instead of 20 - 30 like the F40's.

If I was the head of the MBTA, I would order the most reliable locomotives (The MP-40's), bi-levels (Kawaski's), subway cars (Siemens for light rail, Breda for heavy rail), etc. rather than the cheapest ones. Thus, I would save the MBTA hundreds of millions, or even billions of dollars worth in maintainence, lost service, buying new stuff 5 years later, etc.

Cheapest does not equal profit in the long term.
Veristek
 
Posts: 368
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 4:10 pm

Postby sery2831 » Mon Jun 02, 2008 9:52 pm

diburning wrote:
RailBus63 wrote:This thread is going way off-topic ...


not really. This is the locomotive order discussion thread. Technically, the 2 genset switchers are "on order"


Actually the 2 switchers have a thread here: http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=39031

This discussion is about the order of road engines the T is getting.
Moderator: MBTA Rail Operations
User avatar
sery2831
 
Posts: 5134
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 2:15 pm
Location: Manchester, NH

Postby diburning » Tue Jun 03, 2008 1:29 am

Veristek wrote:The list of lack of foresights I'm referring to is as follows...

1. Opening Greenbush at a time when supplies (locos, cars, etc.) were scarce for the MBTA.


Ok

Veristek wrote:2. Tearing up the A Line in Watertown.


I don't think they had a choice. When the A line was running, the volume of vehicular traffic wasn't as great as it is now.

Veristek wrote:3. Cutting the E Line from Arborway to Heath Street.


They'll restore it...(hopefully)

Veristek wrote:4. Buying Rotem bi-levels when they could have bought proven and durable Kawaski designs that have already shown to work well (the 700's and 900's).[

5. Contracting Breda to construct the Type 8's instead of Siemens or another company with more experience with light rail designs.


I think that the way it works is that legally they have to give the contract to the lowest bidder unless the MBTA has dealt with them before.
User avatar
diburning
 
Posts: 2970
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 7:37 pm
Location: Practicing safe CSX by using Three-Step Protection

Postby RailBus63 » Tue Jun 03, 2008 7:56 am

Can you guys take your argument to another thread? Create one about 'MBTA Procurement Practices' or something.
User avatar
RailBus63
 
Posts: 1872
Joined: Tue May 04, 2004 1:48 pm

Postby sery2831 » Tue Jun 03, 2008 10:52 am

I split some posts from this thread to a new topic 'MBTA Procurement Practices'. Anymore posts OFF topic will be deleted.
Moderator: MBTA Rail Operations
User avatar
sery2831
 
Posts: 5134
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 2:15 pm
Location: Manchester, NH

Re: New MBTA Locomotive Order Discussion

Postby mbta1051dan » Sun Jun 15, 2008 4:14 pm

Take a look at the on order locomotives, denoted with an asterisk*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP36PH

Where did they get that info?

-Dan
MBTA 1051
User avatar
mbta1051dan
 
Posts: 933
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 6:13 pm

Re: New MBTA Locomotive Order Discussion

Postby MBTA3247 » Sun Jun 15, 2008 6:02 pm

mbta1051dan wrote:Take a look at the on order locomotives, denoted with an asterisk*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP36PH

Where did they get that info?

-Dan

Probably somebody jumped the gun and thought that the option they had for a while was an actual order. I have removed MBTA from that list.
"The destination of this train is [BEEP BEEP]" -announcement on an Ashmont train.
User avatar
MBTA3247
 
Posts: 2603
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 6:01 pm
Location: Milton

Re: New MBTA Locomotive Order Discussion

Postby realtype » Sun Jun 15, 2008 6:23 pm

I'm the one resposible for the wikipedia list. All the order info was already on the page (with the exception of MARC, VRE, and MBTA) in long sentence form; I just set out to make it more readable.

I was planning to add a sidenote saying that the MBTA order was an unrealized option, but stupidly forgot. In any case, under the MP36PH-3C section, the entry states that the MBTA is planning to purchase the MP36 without any firm order. Thanks for catching/fixing the error.
User avatar
realtype
 
Posts: 1498
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 9:01 pm
Location: Germantown, MD

Re: New MBTA Locomotive Order Discussion

Postby mxdata » Tue Jun 17, 2008 6:25 am

MBTA surrendered their Utah procurement option for MP36 units some time ago. It was subsequently picked up by MARC and those units are supposed to start being delivered later this year. I do not believe there are any additional Utah options available at this time for any other transit agencies to acquire.

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

Re: New MBTA Locomotive Order Discussion

Postby Veristek » Fri Jun 20, 2008 5:13 am

Utah Procurement option? Could you elaborate on that? I have no idea what it is or means.
Veristek
 
Posts: 368
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 4:10 pm

Re: New MBTA Locomotive Order Discussion

Postby mxdata » Fri Jun 20, 2008 1:18 pm

The Utah MP36 order was a procurement that was negotiated with provisions for certain other commuter rail agencies to obtain additional locomotives of identical design if they chose to do so. This is referred to as an "option" and the locomotives are usually called option units. There was a more detailed explanation of this process in the recent article on the MP36 and MP40 locomotives in Railfan & Railroad magazine.
"We Repair No Locomotive Before Its Time"
User avatar
mxdata
 
Posts: 1677
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 4:30 pm

Re: New MBTA Locomotive Order Discussion

Postby atsf sp » Wed Jul 30, 2008 8:49 pm

I don't see what everyone is worried about MP units in Boston. Metra's MPs look good. And hopefully we don't have to worry about losing our F40s right when they are brought onto the property. I will be looking forward to these engines, but I'll watch all the F40s while I can.
"Why would you take a train to go see another train?"
Some people just don't understand.
My Photos
atsf sp
 
Posts: 2167
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 7:00 pm

Re: New MBTA Locomotive Order Discussion

Postby paulrail » Thu Jul 31, 2008 8:37 pm

In my opinion, the MP40s would sereve the MBTA well from what I have heard of their performance on other railroads. The engines look good, and with a sleek paint scheme, they would be a nice upgrade to the T's commuter rail system. But, whether they can meet the custom bid specifications set forth by the MBTA, is another story.

I hope there is some news about the engines in the near future. :-)

Paul
paulrail
 

PreviousNext

Return to Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests