More SEPTA Push-Pulls?

The Septa Silverliners are getting pretty old! What is Septa going to do when they can no longer operate? I would like to see more push pull equipment. More CIV cabs and AEM-7's an Alp44's. Septa spends millions for new buses and buses are not really as important as trains.......... they could have kept the old buses!

Septa had a bid out last year for new MU's, dubbed SL V's. The bid was originally awarded to a Korean company but later cancelled after Kawasaki raised an issue and threatened a lawsuit over several "improprieties" in the way the bids were handed out and ultimately awarded. At this time, I don't beleive there has been much progress in re-opening the bidding process.

You are absolutely correct about the age of the fleet, the newest cars (SL IV's) are 31 years old with the SL II's and III"s being 10-12 years older than that. While many of the cars have been and continue to be refurbished, they won't last forever. As far as adding more push-pulls or converting some of the MU's to cab cars, that is not likely. Most trains outside of rush hour are only 2-3 cars which makes the MU's more efficient over the P-P's, along with the relatively close spacing of stations on many of the lines. The only time the push-pulls are a better choice is with the 5-6 car peak trains that make limited stops.

I wonder if they will paint a SL-II in special Gold livery for its 'Golden Anniversary.'

HEHEHEHE

Wellllll...the Reading Blueliners lasted for 55 years so anything is possible.

glennk419 wrote:Septa had a bid out last year for new MU's, dubbed SL V's. The bid was originally awarded to a Korean company but later cancelled after Kawasaki raised an issue and threatened a lawsuit over several "improprieties" in the way the bids were handed out and ultimately awarded.

More than threatened--Kawasaki filed that suit, and I think they had a pretty solid case. The documents they filed said SEPTA changed the criteria for awarding the contract without readvertising the contract and soliciting new bids. The change lifted the requirement that bidders have experience building FRA-compliant stainless steel equipment, which Rotem (the Korean company) did not have. Kawasaki's filings included affidavits from some other companies saying that if they had been told of the new requirements, they would have bid.

Kawasaki scored highest in the technical evaluation of proposals, while Rotem was lowest by far. However, Rotem bid the lowest price (at least for the initial order), and the stated criteria were loose enough that SEPTA could pretty much dismiss the technical evaluation and choose Rotem based on its low bid (there was much political interest in having Rotem get the contract because they proposed to do final assembly at the former Philadelphia Naval Ship Yard). Kawasaki was quite close to Rotem on price, and in fact would have been cheaper than Rotem if SEPTA had exercised the option for additional cars.

At this time, I don't believe there has been much progress in re-opening the bidding process.

What I've heard is that the new RFP has been drafted, but is delayed to make sure there will not be any legal hassles this time.