The future of the SEPTA fleet

the sarge wrote:

Jersey_Mike wrote:TW I just noticed that Denver's RTD paid $300 million for 66 Silverliner V cars while SEPTA paid $274 for 120. Yeah it was 10 years ago, but there's been very little inflation since then. I have to give SEPTA a lot of credit for betting on a firm hungry to break into the US market. This got them a 40% discount,

No they didn't, SEPTA got them at pretty much fair market value. The price of an EMU in the states averages around $2.5 million. If Denver paid $4.5 million per car, that is just plain nuts. The new MTA M9's will cost about $2.7 million (The M8's were about the same as the SV costs) and that includes a huge development/engineering costs. Even the costs of scale, 120 vs 66 does not make up for such a huge markup per car. I really do not know what Denver paid for the cars, but I would assume that if the $300 million is a correct number, then it might have included a lot more then just the cars - maybe $165 million for the cars and $135 million for support /packages etc - again, still a very high number for 66 vehicle program; even built from scratch. Either way, even though it is essentially the same car, I wouldn't say SEPTA negotiated the deal of the century because one agency overpaid way over market value.

Jersey_Mike wrote:and FREE refurbishment of 22 push-pull coaches.

Nothings free. Considering the liquid damages that cost SEPTA and its riders from the delivery delays, Rotem got off easy. If you consider the whole SV program as why you love SEPTA (especially in relation to other agencies equipment acquisition programs, except maybe Denver now), you really explained a lot about yourself.

Except Denver's SLV's only have the 60 Hz/25 kV transformer cores, not the frequency-agile 25 Hz/12.5 kV + 60 Hz/12.5 kV + 60 Hz/25 kV cores that SEPTA's have. And which every electric vehicle that trawls the NEC and was manufactured in the 21st century now has (and will have) save for the Metro North M8's, which ditched the 25 Hz core for weight savings (since it also carries 750v DC 3rd rail inputs) but did have the build option to run under every voltage. You would think only needing 1 core for 1 voltage would knock a noticeable amount off Denver's unit price, not to mention that SEPTA did all the nasty work as the lab rat for debugging those pieces of crap. But I guess Rotem's deal with Satan was just that good that they managed to fleece Denver that much worse.

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:

the sarge wrote:

Jersey_Mike wrote:TW I just noticed that Denver's RTD paid $300 million for 66 Silverliner V cars while SEPTA paid $274 for 120. Yeah it was 10 years ago, but there's been very little inflation since then. I have to give SEPTA a lot of credit for betting on a firm hungry to break into the US market. This got them a 40% discount,

No they didn't, SEPTA got them at pretty much fair market value. The price of an EMU in the states averages around $2.5 million. If Denver paid $4.5 million per car, that is just plain nuts. The new MTA M9's will cost about $2.7 million (The M8's were about the same as the SV costs) and that includes a huge development/engineering costs. Even the costs of scale, 120 vs 66 does not make up for such a huge markup per car. I really do not know what Denver paid for the cars, but I would assume that if the $300 million is a correct number, then it might have included a lot more then just the cars - maybe $165 million for the cars and $135 million for support /packages etc - again, still a very high number for 66 vehicle program; even built from scratch. Either way, even though it is essentially the same car, I wouldn't say SEPTA negotiated the deal of the century because one agency overpaid way over market value.

Jersey_Mike wrote:and FREE refurbishment of 22 push-pull coaches.

Nothings free. Considering the liquid damages that cost SEPTA and its riders from the delivery delays, Rotem got off easy. If you consider the whole SV program as why you love SEPTA (especially in relation to other agencies equipment acquisition programs, except maybe Denver now), you really explained a lot about yourself.

Except Denver's SLV's only have the 60 Hz/25 kV transformer cores, not the frequency-agile 25 Hz/12.5 kV + 60 Hz/12.5 kV + 60 Hz/25 kV cores that SEPTA's have. And which every electric vehicle that trawls the NEC and was manufactured in the 21st century now has (and will have) save for the Metro North M8's, which ditched the 25 Hz core for weight savings (since it also carries 750v DC 3rd rail inputs) but did have the build option to run under every voltage. You would think only needing 1 core for 1 voltage would knock a noticeable amount off Denver's unit price, not to mention that SEPTA did all the nasty work as the lab rat for debugging those pieces of crap. But I guess Rotem's deal with Satan was just that good that they managed to fleece Denver that much worse.

I thought they were originally going for the DMU version of the Silverliner V's, when did they decide to change?

zebrasepta wrote:

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:

the sarge wrote:

Jersey_Mike wrote:TW I just noticed that Denver's RTD paid $300 million for 66 Silverliner V cars while SEPTA paid $274 for 120. Yeah it was 10 years ago, but there's been very little inflation since then. I have to give SEPTA a lot of credit for betting on a firm hungry to break into the US market. This got them a 40% discount,

No they didn't, SEPTA got them at pretty much fair market value. The price of an EMU in the states averages around $2.5 million. If Denver paid $4.5 million per car, that is just plain nuts. The new MTA M9's will cost about $2.7 million (The M8's were about the same as the SV costs) and that includes a huge development/engineering costs. Even the costs of scale, 120 vs 66 does not make up for such a huge markup per car. I really do not know what Denver paid for the cars, but I would assume that if the $300 million is a correct number, then it might have included a lot more then just the cars - maybe $165 million for the cars and $135 million for support /packages etc - again, still a very high number for 66 vehicle program; even built from scratch. Either way, even though it is essentially the same car, I wouldn't say SEPTA negotiated the deal of the century because one agency overpaid way over market value.

Jersey_Mike wrote:and FREE refurbishment of 22 push-pull coaches.

Nothings free. Considering the liquid damages that cost SEPTA and its riders from the delivery delays, Rotem got off easy. If you consider the whole SV program as why you love SEPTA (especially in relation to other agencies equipment acquisition programs, except maybe Denver now), you really explained a lot about yourself.

Except Denver's SLV's only have the 60 Hz/25 kV transformer cores, not the frequency-agile 25 Hz/12.5 kV + 60 Hz/12.5 kV + 60 Hz/25 kV cores that SEPTA's have. And which every electric vehicle that trawls the NEC and was manufactured in the 21st century now has (and will have) save for the Metro North M8's, which ditched the 25 Hz core for weight savings (since it also carries 750v DC 3rd rail inputs) but did have the build option to run under every voltage. You would think only needing 1 core for 1 voltage would knock a noticeable amount off Denver's unit price, not to mention that SEPTA did all the nasty work as the lab rat for debugging those pieces of crap. But I guess Rotem's deal with Satan was just that good that they managed to fleece Denver that much worse.

I thought they were originally going for the DMU version of the Silverliner V's, when did they decide to change?

About 5-6 years ago they made the final decision to go electric after debating back and forth for close to a decade. That decision was cast in stone when they went in on the SLV purchase, which are going to be their only commuter rail rolling stock. East Rail Line, Gold Rail Line, first segment of the Northwest Rail Line, and North Metro Rail Line opening 2016-2018 are all electrified 60 Hz/25 kV using their 50 vanilla SLV's.


Right now they have no DMU lines planned, but the +38 mile Northwest Rail Line extension is still having its plans hashed out and will basically dwarf the rest of the system in track miles. That one may need to keep the diesel option open if the freights throw up any blockers for wires (UP is nonplussed by the prospect), but it'll be decades before that's completed much less fully funded so nothing's been hashed out. They'll be well into their second-generation rolling stock purchase by then so it has no bearing on the SLV purchase for these starter lines and the smaller-scale extensions of the non-NW corridors being studied. I suppose if the NW extension requires a diesel switchover at MP 6.8 (the end of the Phase I segment opening 2016) they'll probably opt for something dual-mode since there'll probably be such a thing available in North America in an xMU by the time they get construction of the extension underway.

$300 million was the figure being reported in the Denver area press.

the sarge wrote: Nothings free. Considering the liquid damages that cost SEPTA and its riders from the delivery delays, Rotem got off easy. If you consider the whole SV program as why you love SEPTA (especially in relation to other agencies equipment acquisition programs, except maybe Denver now), you really explained a lot about yourself.

What the riders refuse to pay in taxes then they pay for it in their time. This is a trade off that most Americans are willing to make considering our development patterns and car-centric culture. I love SEPTA because they are actually trying to be serious about getting good value for money.

I'm a PATCO rider and for 14 years they kept the fare unchanged relying on a program of cost containment. They kept the same ties, the same cars, the same outdated signs on the wall about Conrail Seashore trains. If service called for 2-car trains then they'd run 2 cars. Since about 1999 PATCO has been splurging on new everything. Concrete ties, new power systems, new signal system, new payment system, fiberglass pole line poles, etc. The fare has roughly doubled and guess what me, the rider is getting for all this spending? Headways that are TWICE what they were in the 1990's.

If SEPTA wants to splurge let them splurge on TVMs instead of getting riders to pay with their own electronic devices or payment cards. Let them increase Regional Rail speeds from their current standard of 40mph. Paying market price for a reliable new locomotive is not the SEPTA way. Bombardier has an Rc class rebuild program and if they screw it up SEPTA can shake them down for a freebie.

Jersey_Mike wrote:What the riders refuse to pay in taxes then they pay for it in their time. This is a trade off that most Americans are willing to make considering our development patterns and car-centric culture. I love SEPTA because they are actually trying to be serious about getting good value for money.

I'm a PATCO rider and for 14 years they kept the fare unchanged relying on a program of cost containment. They kept the same ties, the same cars, the same outdated signs on the wall about Conrail Seashore trains. If service called for 2-car trains then they'd run 2 cars. Since about 1999 PATCO has been splurging on new everything. Concrete ties, new power systems, new signal system, new payment system, fiberglass pole line poles, etc. The fare has roughly doubled and guess what me, the rider is getting for all this spending? Headways that are TWICE what they were in the 1990's.

If SEPTA wants to splurge let them splurge on TVMs instead of getting riders to pay with their own electronic devices or payment cards. Let them increase Regional Rail speeds from their current standard of 40mph. Paying market price for a reliable new locomotive is not the SEPTA way. Bombardier has an Rc class rebuild program and if they screw it up SEPTA can shake them down for a freebie.

Wow, just wow. I take you never had a job that wasn't an internship/temp? Put a fork in me, I'm officially done.....

Sarge, don't worry about Mike. He is known for two things here: 1. Arguing with anybody about anything; 2. ridiculing any type of capital investment, especially new catenary and rolling stock. If Mike had his way, we'd still be riding around in heavyweight cars on joint rail under triangular catenary.

While MIke has a good knowledge of signal systems, he clearly does not know much about financial analysis. It's a simple equation: if the present value of maintaining a fleet of older cars/track/wires is greater than the purchase price of new cars/track/wires, why are we wasting taxpayer money on some old jalopies?

I think the short answer is the false sense of security provided by stainless steel - most fleets are made of stainless and it doesn't rust, ergo the fleet must be okay. Nevermind the tremendous wear in the draft gear and problems sourcing electrical components like resistors and contactors.

Look, I'm a buff - most of us are on this forum. I rode the CTA 2200's for no good reason quite a lot toward the end of service. But given my status as a taxpayer and daily rider, I don't want to pay for nor ride some old jalopies with busted doors, A/C, heat, etc... You have one door on some old jalopy cars go down and it puts a ten minute kink into a seriously-busy rapid transit system. Thousands of people are late to work and unsafe crowding occurs on the platforms downstream.

Secret: I'm a closet foamer.
Bigger secret: I love new train cars. It's so nice riding home on a quiet and warm train.

Tadman wrote: While MIke has a good knowledge of signal systems, he clearly does not know much about financial analysis. It's a simple equation: if the present value of maintaining a fleet of older cars/track/wires is greater than the purchase price of new cars/track/wires, why are we wasting taxpayer money on some old jalopies?

For one it's called moral hazard. If transit agencies are forced to eat their own dog food then they will make darn sure they buy quality equipment in the first place. The FTA requires 30 year service lives for any equipment bought with FTA funds or you have to pay back a portion of the funds. That prevents SEPTA (or anyone else) from going to some low bid Charlie than crying to the FTA for more money when the equipment falls apart.

Second rebuilding still provides higher value for money with locomotives in the 20 year rage than buying new. All I am advocating here is that SEPTA take its 20 year old electrics that have perfectly serviceable frames and carbodies and whatever else and buy the off-the-shelf Bombardier rebuild package. Or they could rebuild NJT's ALP-44's. Or get some remaining years out of Amtrak's already rebuilt AEM-7ACs.

The CTA 2200's were built in 1970 and saw full service lives. SEPTA's AEM-7's were built in 1987 and are a little more than halfway through theirs. That's the difference.

Of course we all know what's really going on here. SEPTA has split-level envy and they want larger locomotives to pull them around. You need a lot of push-pull power to maintain the schedule when you're stops are less than a mile apart.

Jersey_Mike wrote:

Second rebuilding still provides higher value for money with locomotives in the 20 year rage than buying new. All I am advocating here is that SEPTA take its 20 year old electrics that have perfectly serviceable frames and carbodies and whatever else and buy the off-the-shelf Bombardier rebuild package. Or they could rebuild NJT's ALP-44's. Or get some remaining years out of Amtrak's already rebuilt AEM-7ACs.

.

I can't speak for the Septic Meatballs, but I can tell you the bodies on a lot of Amtrak Remans are really towards the end of their useful life. You can only re-weld and patch problem areas so many times. There are a few that are banned from the car wash at this point. You'll flood the cab and short out components in the engine room. Even if their is some sort of rebuild package available, by the time you add the labor, you're approaching the cost of a more powerful engined that is new.

Mike, your post collapses in on itself.

Jersey_Mike wrote:The FTA requires 30 year service lives [...] SEPTA's AEM-7's were built in 1987

This means that SEPTA's AEM-7s are 28 years old this year. After the bid for procurement, the manufacture, testing, and acceptance of new locomotives, the AEM-7s will have passed that 30 year requirement.

Jersey_Mike wrote: All I am advocating here is that SEPTA take its 20 year old electrics [...] [AEM-7s]are a little more than halfway through their [service lives]

But wait, I thought the locos were built in 1987? If they are halfway through their service lives, they would be 15 years old. But you are saying they are 20 years old?

Jersey_Mike wrote:for any equipment bought with FTA funds or you have to pay back a portion of the funds.

Wait, I thought that the funds for procuring railcars came out of the Capital Budget provided by the State of Pennsylvania? Doesn't the state provide the money from the General Fund?

Jersey_Mike wrote:That prevents SEPTA (or anyone else) from going to some low bid Charlie than crying to the FTA for more money when the equipment falls apart.

Replace "FTA" with "State" and we have a valid statement. But, the State would prefer that SEPTA pay as little as possible for crappy equipment (see Silverliner Vs) and then will complain when SEPTA comes back that rail service is welfare and that they should have gotten better equipment with the money given earlier. It is a catch-22

Jersey_Mike wrote:Second rebuilding still provides higher value for money with locomotives in the 20 year rage than buying new. [...] buy the off-the-shelf Bombardier rebuild package.

Are you a salesman for Bombardier? PATCO went the rebuild route with its cars, yet we still see no new cars in service. And, if my memory serves me correctly, wasn't Bombardier's bid to PATCO for new cars instead of remans for a marginal difference in cost?

Jersey_Mike wrote:Or they could rebuild NJT's ALP-44's. Or get some remaining years out of Amtrak's already rebuilt AEM-7ACs.

NJT's ALP-44s more than likely have a much larger number of miles and wear and tear on them than SEPTA's AEM-7s. Same with Amtrak's AEM-7ACs. Why rebuild or purchase something that is even more worn down that what we have?

Jersey_Mike wrote:The CTA 2200's were built in 1970 and saw full service lives.

The CTA 2200s were also Budd cars. Do I need to explain Budd's reputation as a builder?

Jersey_Mike wrote:Of course we all know what's really going on here. SEPTA has split-level envy and they want larger locomotives to pull them around. You need a lot of push-pull power to maintain the schedule when you're stops are less than a mile apart.

No, I think that is just what you think. Trains cannot get any longer due to a lack of yard space and short station platforms. Since cars cannot be added to the end, SEPTA needs to build up. As I like to say for my reasoning for always sitting in the last car, "not all cars platform at all stations." I invite you to ride Train 9724.

game. set. match.

Jersey_Mike wrote:
For one it's called moral hazard. If transit agencies are forced to eat their own dog food then they will make darn sure they buy quality equipment in the first place. The FTA requires 30 year service lives for any equipment bought with FTA funds or you have to pay back a portion of the funds. That prevents SEPTA (or anyone else) from going to some low bid Charlie than crying to the FTA for more money when the equipment falls apart

Don't know where 30 years came from, the FTA time for useful life for rail vehicles is 25 years. As an FYI, that number is not set in stone. A grantee can actually plead/submit an alternative lifespan as normal people understand different situations can warrant different lifespans. Either way, the AEM-7s are wayyyyyy past the half way point. Plus, if a grantee has to dispose of a piece of equipment prior to the useful life requirement, the payback is calculated between the diffemce in depriciated value and sale price multiplied by the percentage the FTA chipped in. By 20 years, usually about 20% of the scrap price covers the money owed to the FRA.

The FTA/grantee relationship is not even close to a "moral hazard" situation. Implying this is more idiotic then saying the FTA sets a useful life criteria to ensure good workmanship. Where do you come up with this tripe? Yes, if the FTA grants cash, they expect the grantee to use the equipment for a certain amount of time before deposition. But to say that the useful life requirement actually applies one iota towards ensuring a grantee chooses the better manufacturer is just plain wrong.

Take it easy guys.

Not to mention the concept of service life is a bit loose. Rather than retiring old/troublesome power that still has time left on contract, the agency will park them on-property without officially retiring them.

Jersey_Mike wrote: All I am advocating here is that SEPTA take its 20 year old electrics that have perfectly serviceable frames and carbodies and whatever else and buy the off-the-shelf Bombardier rebuild package. Or they could rebuild NJT's ALP-44's. Or get some remaining years out of Amtrak's already rebuilt AEM-7ACs.

Does this package even exist? A rebuild package for what, seven units of someone else's power? If so, how much does it cost? Is that cost materially lower than the price of new locomotives? Will the new service life be as long as a new locomotive?

The hits keep coming...

Tadman wrote:Not to mention the concept of service life is a bit loose. Rather than retiring old/troublesome power that still has time left on contract, the agency will park them on-property without officially retiring them.

Actually, the FTA defines useful life (Its interchangeable term for service life) pretty much dead on. What is loose is the enforcement. Obviously, the FTA is heavily involved during the acquisition process. But once the equipment is accepted, the FTA goes away until the equipment's retirement because even if a rail vehicle is used for 50 years, the FTA is entitled to its contribution percentage if the vehicle is sold (even for scrap) if the price is over $5K. So once the locomotive is accepted by the agency and in revenue service, the FTA goes to sleep until the equipment is disposed of, not when its stops getting used. Lets say an agency buys equipment for $10M, asks the FTA to cover 50% of the costs, uses the equipment for 20 years, parks them in the back for another five, and then sells to Mexico for a million, the FTA will collect $500K as that is their percentage of the proceeds. Technically, the FTA could go back with a claim for more money because the equipment sat for five and it was not used in revenue service. To do this, they have to prove the value of the equipment at the 20 year mark was more then what they were sold for and collect on the difference (Or 50% of the difference in this case)- a process that can be very debatable and drawn out.