CDOT may stop M-2 rehab

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/lo ... -headlines

So much for a committment to funding new cars from new sources.

WOW.....MNRR should cease service east of Port Chester and let SLE run all Ct. operations......let CDOT handle everything in CT. and see how well it works out!

They're so short of cars that they run diesels in all electric teritory, yet they want to cease rehab!!!??? Insane.

Okay, easy does it there Dave.

MNRR, as I understand it, does not own 50% of the equiptment on the NH line. Fiscal repsonsability is split 65/35. CT is the only reason that we are still stuck with those M-2s. If they had coughed up some money a few years back they could have saved themselves and the riders a little headache.

OF COURSE MNRR is never going to cease CT operations, but have a sense of humor.

Lastly, diesels under the wire: Naturally diesels run under the wire ALL THE TIME. However, it has been stated many times before that, due to equiptment shortages, diesels are on trains that run in electified areas ONLY as supplements. Why would an express that runs from New Rochelle be a diesel?
Also, as recently discussed here, the P-32acdm runs on it's own power and not the 3rd rail any time it goes over 60 or 65 mph which means that it's on diesel alot of the time that its running in 3rd rail territory.



Okay.....rant complete

David Telesha wrote:First of all, Shore Line East is a service with CDOT equipment, and MNRR and Amtrak crews. Running diesels under the wire is nothing new, and will happen always - none of the branches are electrified and there are equipment rotations to do.

On top of that, MNRR owns 50% or so of the fleet.. Why are you blaming CDOT and saying MNRR should stop CT service when MNRR's mouth piece said this:

The rehabilitated M2s have proven reliable, especially during the winter, but it may be more cost effective to save that money for new cars, railroad spokesman Dan Brucker said.

First, the New Canaan branch is electrified. Danbury used to be, and, if CDOT stops studying it to death, may be again, although I'm not sure it's a useful allocation of money, i.e. cost - benefit ratio. That money might be better spent on NH-Springfield service.

The M-2 program, from my understanding, has been extremely useful at a relatively low cost. Insiders may have more info on this, and if I'm wrong, please point that out. These rehabbed M-2's are supposed to have an extended 10-year life. The current M-2's are reaching the end of their useful lives, which I think was supposed to be 25 years, and painfully so. I believe they were put into revenue service around 72, replacing the sardine cans used at that time?

The point is, CDOT committed to funding new rail car purchases with dedicated funding, not reallocated funding. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is poor public policy. That's not to say that the rehab shouldn't be reexamined if the money is better spent elsewhere, but the M-8 purchase is supposed to both replace aging and failing M-2's, and expand the fleet to meet growing demand. CT is talking about expanding and reinstating service on several lines (Danbury to New Milford, NH to Springfield, Worcester to New London). With the delivery date of M-8's being pushed out, and potential for other delivery delays (see the other threads on design issues for operability in territory above New Haven and below Shell Interlocking), it might be useful to continue to extend the lives of these cars for fleet flexibility (can you say M-7 flat spots?).

The contract between MNRR and CDOT has always been a bone of contention. It's not necessarily the cost ratio, but board representation, service levels, etc. Also, I believe CDOT pays 100% of all costs for branch operation in CT territory, and possibly for all trains originating above Stamford? Not sure on that one. I'm not sure about the ownership of the fleet, if it follows the cost-sharing, or if CDOT owns the entire fleet. I haven't been up there in quite a while, but don't most of the cars have the CT seal by the doors?

Found some interesting info on M-8 procurement and and M-2 rehab on CDOT's site:

http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?a=1390&q=316752

M-8 procurement is another thread on this site, but on the topic of M-2 rehab, it's a program they should keep going with. I believe the pace is a pair of cars/month.

The M-2 Critical System Replacement Program has been underway since 2001, completing the replacement and rehabilitation of approximately a third of the passenger cars to date. By the end of 2005, 50 pairs or 100 passenger cars have been rehabilitated and put back in to service. The New Haven Rail Line currently operates a fleet of 242 M-2 cars placed into service between the years of 1973-1976. The majority of the existing equipment is now over the 30-year design life. This rehabilitation program will provide 10-12 more years of service, enough time to last until the receipt of the new fleet of M-8 passenger cars.

...The Connecticut Department of Transportation developed this project to address the multitude of passenger car systems failures. With the assistance of Metro North, the operator of the New Haven Line, CDOT and Metro North began a $150 million dollar program to replace or rebuild several critical systems on the current M-2 passenger cars. Connecticut’s portion is $98.2 million or 65%, while New York/MTA is contributing $51.8 million or 35%. The expected completion date is year-end of 2008.

Seems to me to be a pretty wise investment.

stopping the rehab program would be stupid, first M-8's won't be ready till end of 2009 for test running at Pueblo. The first production cars won't be here till 2010.
Thats almost 4 years, plus without the maintenance what happens if M-8's have a snafu like slip slide that M7's have ?? ????
by not doing the rebuilt in house CDOT leaves itself open to hudge equipment shortages.

All that is true, but just how much more time and money must be spent on the antique M2s? The CSR program has overhauled over 40% of the M2 fleet and that should buy enough time until the M8s enter service.

The simple fact is that it is cost MN more to maintain the M2s than to buy new cars!!!

Also keep in mind that despite some of MN's claims, nothing that the CSR program is doing to the M2s will make them run better in winter, or overcome their basic primitive design. CSR overhauled pairs are just as likely to suffer traction power and dynamic brake failures as non modified pairs.

according to the CDOT site, 98.2million is CT's share. ttl cost is 150m. That's less than 1m/car (242 cars). Factor in the life of 10 years, that's 100k/yr using very round numbers.

According to the Advocate article:

The renovated trains feature new power inverters that don't fail when moisture enters the components. Other major power components are also replaced and upgraded.

The article goes on to say that the rehab doubles the mean time between failure.

The M-8 procurement is costing 842m for 340 cars. That's a little more than $2m/car. Expecting a 30 yr life, that's about 65m/yr using very round numbers.

So there is a point to reevaluating the efficacy of the program, but only after the new cars enter revenue service, prove reliable, etc. Otherwise, the program is a great hedge on keeping the fleet size up.

I operate these cars 5 days a week and I can tell you that CSR pairs do run better and are better than non CSR pairs. But they are just a likely to have power/dynamic failures as non modified units.

The items that cripple these cars in the winter and snow have NOT been changed. The electrical cabinets on the outside of the cars do not seal tightly enough to keep snow out of them and many of the major components are exposed to the elements.

CSR pairs have inverters instead of the MAs (Motor Altenators) for secondary voltage (Heat, A/C, cooling fans, ATC ect) which have been tested on two M2 pairs for quite a few years. All of what the CSR program does help the cars be a bit more reliable. But as I said before, the program doesn't overcome the M2s basic primitive design.

Think of the CSR program as buying a 30 year old car and tuning it up with a lot of new parts and giving it a paint job. What do you have? The most modern, efficient car on the highway? Not quite!!!

I understand CapeCod's fustration since the CSR program is little more than lipstick on a pig -- they are "new" components to break in the winter.

I think it's important that they finish the program and add a little life to the cars since I don't think he'll be running M8s anytime in 2009 and probably not until sometime in 2010. Stopping the program now puts everyone on a path to disappointment. When the cars don't show up on time, or have problems when delivered, there will (likely) be fewer cars to fall back on.

Why can't they seal the outdoor lockers better? Ventilation for the gear inside?

It's not a sence of "Frustration" I have with the CSR cars. I much prefer running them than the non CSR cars. I'm only telling it like it is. They are better, but still are prone to having the very same failures that non CSR cars do, but not as often.

I never meant to belittle the CSR program. Anything they to the cars is better than doing nothing. I just want people to know that this isn't a long term solution, and it was never meant to be. If I have any real complaint against the CSR program is why didn't it start about 10 years ago when the blizzard of January 7/8 1996 showed just how vulnerable these cars were?

I have mixed feelings about cancelling the program altogether. Maybe they could do another 20 to 30 pairs and that would bring the number of overhauled M2s to over 50%. By that time we're well into 2008.

Agree, it was definitely a temp solution. Rowland was as anti-transit as you could get, he wanted to ditch all branch lines and SLE save New Canaan. They were lucky to get him to sign off on this. If they last 10 years, that's great. Who would have though they would have lasted over 30? And why did they order so few M-4's and M-6's?

Cape, I know crews have to check out on roads, but do you have to check out on different equipment as well? For instance, can you drive M-4's and 6's as well? What's the difference, which do you prefer?

I like running the M2s in all three varieties (see below). I hate the M4s because of their non modified ATC system and crampt operators cab. I do like the M6s (even though they have a lot of problems) mainly because of their modified ATC sysyem and the fact that they are still relatively new (1994).

M2s are currently in three variations.

1st:
All M2s were overhauled by Morrison/Knudeson between 1984 and 1990. This was mainly a cosmetic rebuild but it did make changes to the traction, A/C and electrical systems. The most noticeable change to the M2s from this period was the short-lived "Accordian" style horizontal sliding cab windows. Endless jamming and improper sealing caused for the rapid removement of these.

2nd:
A second phase of rebuilding was started in 1993 again with M/K doing the work. This rebuild was more noticeable and included such features as a modified ATC system and a door trainline cutoff switch between the "A" and "B" cars such as found on the M4s which allows the doors to be opened on only one car of a pair. Also noticeable is the dark tan crash pads on the back of the passenger seats. Only 25 pairs went through this project when funding was cut off. Another 8 pairs were sent to M/K for rebuilding that were damaged by the blizzard of 1996 for a total of 33 pairs.

3rd:
The current CSR program that features a new type of modified ATC system with a digital speedometer, an inverter that replaces the MA, new high tech vacuum toilets, improved HVAC system and slight changes to the traction power system.

Cape, thanks for the info, that's really interesting that there have been two previous iterations of a rehab. Not surprised that one of them got cut off in the middle. Didn't MK do the redbird rehab on the IRT cars?

Found another article on rehabs this a.m., on the VRE cars. This has been one of CDOT's nightmares. Nothing big, just an FOI request.


http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/lo ... -headlines

ConnDOT's lack of complying with law is notorious, statelaw requires 3 compettetive bids from 3 credible suppliers.
Did anyone see a bid proces for the 11 brookville locomotives where ConnDot is paying majority of contract ????
ConnDOT is above the law simple as that.