F40PH-2C/F40PHM-2C overhaul program

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

Moderators: CRail, sery2831

F40PH-2C/F40PHM-2C overhaul program

Postby dbperry » Fri Nov 11, 2016 1:58 pm

RFP 143-16 posted here:
https://www.mbta.com/business_center/bi ... _for_bids/

Description: The MBTA seeks a qualified Contractor to overhaul ten (10) F40PH-2C/F40PHM-2C locomotives. The Contract allows for the option to twenty-six (26) additional locomotives to be overhauled. The designated locomotives shall be overhauled/remanufactured in accordance with the requirements detailed in Technical Specification No. LO17-0013 (also referred to in this document as "the Technical Specifications"), To assist the MBTA in this effort, the Authority is issuing this Request for Proposal ("RFP") to solicit responses from qualified firms or individuals who can meet the project requirements stated herein, in strict accordance with MBTA Specifications.

Pre-Bid Meeting: 11/29/2016

Bids Due: 12/13/2016


From Transit History roster page:

The MBTA has requested bids to overhaul 10 F40PH-2C/F40PHM-2C locomotives with an option to overhaul 26 additional locomotives (36 total). The overhaul is expected to extend the service life by 10 years minimum without future component overhauls, and 20 years maximum with future component overhauls, but units will not be considered remanufactured. Proposals are due 12/13/2016
Known to Keolis and the MBTA as "Twitter Dave"
Frequently posting about the MBTA Framingham-Worcester line on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FramWorMBTA
Owner of Framingham-Worcester Blog: http://FramWorMBTA.weebly.com/
Maintainer of MBTA schedule archive: http://www.dbperry.net/MBTA/
User avatar
dbperry
 
Posts: 793
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2006 9:28 pm
Location: Suburbs of Boston

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

Postby ns3010 » Sat Nov 12, 2016 12:03 pm

Great that they're moving forward on this. Hopefully there won't be any additional major failures (we all know how that goes...) before they can reinstitute some of the already deadlined units so that they can boost available numbers before the option contract is exercised.

Of course, hopefully they are able to get a contractor that is competent enough to return the units in somewhat reliable condition... Too many times, it seems though, rebuilds come back worse than when they are sent out...
User avatar
ns3010
 
Posts: 1961
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 12:53 pm
Location: MP 226.5

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

Postby BandA » Mon Nov 14, 2016 2:05 pm

CTDot had a proposal for major overhaul of some of their diesel engines several months ago. How does the process & specs compare? Certainly it is kind of a pain to obtain bid documents from the MBTA website (you have to register, download each part separately) for what are public documents that should be freely available. Also, they give preferences to protected classes aka "disadvantaged" business enterprises. I would want the work done by the most qualified contractor, not the most disadvantaged or fake-disadvantaged contractor.

I read the CT documents a while ago and was impressed with the level of detail and that they were essentially remanufacturing the engines.
User avatar
BandA
 
Posts: 1880
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 11:47 am

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

Postby F-line to Dudley via Park » Mon Nov 14, 2016 3:51 pm

BandA wrote:CTDot had a proposal for major overhaul of some of their diesel engines several months ago. How does the process & specs compare? Certainly it is kind of a pain to obtain bid documents from the MBTA website (you have to register, download each part separately) for what are public documents that should be freely available. Also, they give preferences to protected classes aka "disadvantaged" business enterprises. I would want the work done by the most qualified contractor, not the most disadvantaged or fake-disadvantaged contractor.

I read the CT documents a while ago and was impressed with the level of detail and that they were essentially remanufacturing the engines.


CDOT's got two RFP's out: one for its 12 ex-Amtrak/NJT Genesis P40DC's, and one for its 6 ex-freight GP40-2H's that were remanufactured like-new in '96 (without the stupid unproven computer doohickeys that ruined our Geep MC remans that same year). But they have not selected a vendor yet, and are keeping wiggle room open if plans change. Potential availability of more P40's in near future could change the picture, because if the Siemens Chargers stay on-schedule AMTK will have no need to hold onto their 15 stored operable P40's non-rebuilds. Beefing up the P40 program with more secondhands for a unified fleet while canceling the Geep program and just riding that smaller fleet out to end-of-life and dispersal could end up being the better value. Or not...but they're keeping their options open and taking their time on the RFP's regardless.

There's a very big difference between CDOT and the T on pace and urgency. CDOT has more non-Metro North diesel equipment than they truly need right now. They have lots of slack on the Shore Line East loco and coach rosters, and the Hartford Line is going to have a very sparse schedule for the first 3-5 years before it scales up in increments plotted out way in advance. They're not under any pressure to get the M8 EMU's waved into service before Hartford goes live. When they do appear it'll probably only be M8's covering the Old Saybrook-turning SLE schedule because New London schedules have to wait for the Connecticut River Bridge replacement and associated construction impacts before New London schedules can increase. They'll still be fine for diesel availability because the meager current SLE New London schedule requires so little equipment above-and-beyond the Old Saybrook schedule that they'd still have lots of spares for juggling Hartford Line service starts simultaneous with the loco rebuild program. They can wait as long as they want for the rightest moment they want to schedule the actual factory rebuild they're now RFP'ing now.



The T has no such luxury. This is an outright crisis of dead F40PH-2C engines they have no internal resources to get ahead of. It's affected by the same logjam of unfilled open positions that's slowing the whole agency, in part because the FCMB isn't filling middle management fast enough to even have enough hiring managers to bring on more shop staff. There's acknowledgement that Keolis is too overburdened to send surge resources from the outside, meaning clearing out that dead line has to come from third-party help...somewhere. The FCMB doesn't have a firm idea of what it can afford for a spec-by-spec rebuild. The dead line piled up so fast with -2C's in so much worse condition than they ever anticipated that they simply don't know unit-to-unit how bad the assessment is going to be under the hood or how fast what pot of money they have scraped together for the program will be drained. That makes it impossible to peg how extensive a rebuild it's going to be...a full-on like-new rebuild a la CDOT's twin RFP's, or quickie component changes like the two MassDOT-paint engines that Pan Am hacked back into (sorta) service. The only printed goals are "two pools: clearing out -2C dead line first, then reliability enhancements on subset of active units...general goal of 10-year post-overhaul service life."

We don't know what that entails, or what engines it will draw from. If it's just reviving dead units any way they can be revived, the touches could be different and/or haphazard unit-to-unit. The unit selection may not differentiate between 29-year-old F40PH-2C's and 23-year-old F40PHM-2C's...just grab-and-go. It may not be a true modernization, like the consistent and uniform F40PH-3/F40PH-3C specs that Metro North and Metra full-on rebuilt their hodgepodge fleets into. It may not have the opportunity to go for the tactically longest lifespan by setting aside the younger PHM-2C's for the fullest/most thorough rebuild and the older -2C's for the "patch-and-stretch". The emergency situation created by the power shortage and coach shortage boxes in their options and amps up the pressure to do something/anything fast even if the end result is just a punt where reliability issues come back with a vengeance in 3-5 years. All of this is why the details are still sketchy. They don't totally know what they're dealing with. They're just rapid-firing the RFP to get some options to sift through on what availability of outside help is going to be. The rest will be figure it out as they go along, with whatever price points they get back in this RFP. It's very much a think-on-your-feet exercise polar opposite to CDOT's methodical years-in-advance pivot.



The one depressing thing we can read from the tea leaves is that there probably isn't a shot of ordering more new locos anytime soon. It was always dubious whether MPI's traumatic experience with HSP-46 design-build would scare them away from doing any subsequent orders. Especially since it now looks like interest in that make is virtually nil from other buyers, and sinking so much bandwidth into designing the GE platform on the HSP design may have killed future sales of their MPXpress cash cow by letting Siemens beat them to market with a mass-produced Tier 4 engine. The MP36PH/MP40PH, after 15 years of being the best-selling passenger make, are pretty much screwed forever because they're so overweight in current incarnation and tardy on next-generation design that the only Tier 4 retrofit MPI has been able to hack together with them is that hella weird genset unicorn that GO Transit is inexplicably and bafflingly ordering. They're retreating to Tier 4 retrofits of their more lurcrative freight lineup and probably can't be begged to produce more passenger units, leaving the T in a place where it may not be able to follow through on its fleet plan for unifying under the GE GEVO platform. It now could be fragmentation forever with half-GE roster and a bunch of EMD's and future Siemens-Cummins makes needing to fill out the rest. Overcustomization lessons once again learned bitterly and too far after the fact.
F-line to Dudley via Park
 
Posts: 7186
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 7:26 pm
Location: North Cambridge

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

Postby mxdata » Wed Dec 14, 2016 7:50 pm

I read the RFP and it certainly has its conflicts. They want to get the units repaired and back into service in ten months each, but at the same time they throw in a requirement for a new microprocessor control system and a complete rewire. This in a fleet of units where the Dash-2 control system has not been that much of a problem.

The addendum shows the number of units out of service for bearing or crankshaft failures. Those could be addressed immediately with engine changes, and possibly main generator changes at the same time, and get them back into service in much less that the ten months specified in the 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 BandA » Thu Dec 15, 2016 12:03 am

So wiring hasn't contributed to the lack of reliability.
User avatar
BandA
 
Posts: 1880
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 11:47 am

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

Postby F-line to Dudley via Park » Thu Dec 15, 2016 1:38 pm

mxdata wrote:I read the RFP and it certainly has its conflicts. They want to get the units repaired and back into service in ten months each, but at the same time they throw in a requirement for a new microprocessor control system and a complete rewire. This in a fleet of units where the Dash-2 control system has not been that much of a problem.

The addendum shows the number of units out of service for bearing or crankshaft failures. Those could be addressed immediately with engine changes, and possibly main generator changes at the same time, and get them back into service in much less that the ten months specified in the RFP.

MX


Microprocessor control and Tier 0+ emissions upgrade are the defining characteristics of the F40PH-3 / -3C, corresponding to the base spec MK Rail used for the very very last all-new units delivered in 2003 lightly refreshed in 2011 by Progress Rail when they started doing the Metra (-3 w/ alternator) and MNRR (-3C w/ HEP generator) rebuilds. So, yes, they are talking about two separate paths: in-situ repair (or, less charitably, duct tape and baling wire :( ) vs. a longer-lifespan full modernization. At least if they do exactly what Progress did by-the-book with their hundred units of -3# rebuilds to-date the microprocessor addition is a non-scary prospect that hasn't caused anyone major problems. It's the T's addiction to overcustomization and shortage of watchful eyes in the project mgt. department that raises the horrible spectre of another FrankenGeep disaster senselessly ruining good power.


The incoherence of the RFP's is all because they have no freaking idea how much they have available to spend, and are completely lost at projecting how many operable bodies they can send out for how long. In a perfect world taking the time to do a proper -3C upgrade of the PHM's first then working down the list on the best of the rest from the older EMD batches nets the longest life extension at best reliability for duration of life extension. But they're under such intense pressure that they may not have the time to do it methodically. Short of finding a rent-a-wreck broker that can supply them with...uh, non-wreck...reinforcements for the duration of a rebuild, they don't have the bandwidth to pay much attention to the long view and what stepped-out plan maxes out the life-of-vehicle economics. Too many ongoing national Tier 4 orders that still have 2+ years from completion before anyone makes a big aftermarket dump of more moderately-worn spares, so until then the leaser pool is as dire as it was with last year's AMT Screamers.

Panic time is never conducive to making great decisions, so I hope to hell this plan gets fleshed out better and that the FCMB can deliver the resources to do it right. Including doing just the band-aids right. Slapdash anything is bad news.
F-line to Dudley via Park
 
Posts: 7186
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 7:26 pm
Location: North Cambridge

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

Postby merrick1 » Sun Dec 18, 2016 2:22 pm

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:It was always dubious whether MPI's traumatic experience with HSP-46 design-build would scare them away from doing any subsequent orders. Especially since it now looks like interest in that make is virtually nil from other buyers, and sinking so much bandwidth into designing the GE platform on the HSP design may have killed future sales of their MPXpress cash cow by letting Siemens beat them to market with a mass-produced Tier 4 engine. The MP36PH/MP40PH, after 15 years of being the best-selling passenger make, are pretty much screwed forever because they're so overweight in current incarnation and tardy on next-generation design that the only Tier 4 retrofit MPI has been able to hack together with them is that hella weird genset unicorn that GO Transit is inexplicably and bafflingly ordering. They're retreating to Tier 4 retrofits of their more lurcrative freight lineup and probably can't be begged to produce more passenger units, leaving the T in a place where it may not be able to follow through on its fleet plan for unifying under the GE GEVO platform. It now could be fragmentation forever with half-GE roster and a bunch of EMD's and future Siemens-Cummins makes needing to fill out the rest.


The people at Vossloh are laughing their butts off.
merrick1
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 12:31 pm

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

Postby diburning » Mon Dec 19, 2016 10:38 pm

Word through the grapevine is that Kinki Sharyo (located in Piscataway, NJ) placed a bid, and they're very confident that they will win.
User avatar
diburning
 
Posts: 2970
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 7:37 pm
Location: Practicing safe CSX by using Three-Step Protection

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

Postby CNJGeep » Tue Dec 20, 2016 10:13 pm

diburning wrote:Word through the grapevine is that Kinki Sharyo (located in Piscataway, NJ) placed a bid, and they're very confident that they will win.

That could explain why they have taken delivery of Ex-NJT GP40FH-2 4139.
"Nobody wins unless everybody wins."
CNJGeep
 
Posts: 1460
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 4:33 pm
Location: A Small Onion

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

Postby mxdata » Thu Dec 22, 2016 3:38 pm

I don't think anybody has submitted any bids yet. The MBTA procurement website indicates the bid deadlines have been extended into January.

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 mxdata » Fri Dec 23, 2016 10:24 pm

BandA wrote:So wiring hasn't contributed to the lack of reliability.


Both the 1025 and the 1050 series units were built well into the era of exane control wiring. They were rung out and clean as of the 1999-2004 rebuild programs. I am only aware of one unit that had any surface wiring added to the harness to correct a problem with control wires since then, and that was just two wires.

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 mxdata » Fri Feb 03, 2017 4:15 pm

There is a notice posted on the MBTA procurement website this afternoon that this RFP has been cancelled.

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 » Fri Feb 03, 2017 8:00 pm

If that's true, I guess we'll be whistling past another graveyard!

D
GP40MC1118
 
Posts: 3309
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 8:06 pm

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

Postby NH2060 » Fri Feb 03, 2017 8:10 pm

mxdata wrote:There is a notice posted on the MBTA procurement website this afternoon that this RFP has been cancelled.

MX

Hmm... is MPI or Siemens about to get another order? ;-)
NH2060
 
Posts: 1442
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 4:44 pm

Next

Return to Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests