Electrification of NJ Transit

amtrakowitz wrote:

CComMack wrote:Yes, but the up-front capital cost is prohibitive

Prohibitive compared to what: buying 329 MLVs, 36 ALP-46As, 35 ALP-45DPs (at an average of about $10 million apiece), and raiding the NJTPA for $1.2 billion for ARC? never mind associated costs of storing Comet IIIs and ALP-44s?

I agree the ML and ALP 45 purchases were a bit excessive, but the purchase of 36 46-A's was totally justified.

morris&essex4ever wrote:

amtrakowitz wrote:

CComMack wrote:Yes, but the up-front capital cost is prohibitive

Prohibitive compared to what: buying 329 MLVs, 36 ALP-46As, 35 ALP-45DPs (at an average of about $10 million apiece), and raiding the NJTPA for $1.2 billion for ARC? never mind associated costs of storing Comet IIIs and ALP-44s?

I agree the ML and ALP 45 purchases were a bit excessive, but the purchase of 36 46-A's was totally justified.

By what in particular?

amtrakowitz wrote:

morris&essex4ever wrote:

amtrakowitz wrote:

CComMack wrote:Yes, but the up-front capital cost is prohibitive

Prohibitive compared to what: buying 329 MLVs, 36 ALP-46As, 35 ALP-45DPs (at an average of about $10 million apiece), and raiding the NJTPA for $1.2 billion for ARC? never mind associated costs of storing Comet IIIs and ALP-44s?

I agree the ML and ALP 45 purchases were a bit excessive, but the purchase of 36 46-A's was totally justified.

By what in particular?

Rebuilding the 44's was found to be less cost effective than buying new 46's. It's just like other transportation vehicles(planes, buses, cars, etc...) There comes a point when it becomes more expensive to rebuild the existing fleet than it is to buy new rolling stock. Otherwise, the 747-100's would still be flying today.

Found so by whom? (This is "argumentum ad verecundiam", remember.)

It was also allegedly "found" that rebuilding the Comet IIIs would be more revenue-intensive than buying new MLVs. Judging by NJT's current fiscal situation, those findings might need to be reviewed.

Comparing the Boeing 747-100 with either Comet IIIs or ALP-44s is apples and oranges, not just because it is train with plane but also due to the timeline. The Comet IIIs and ALP-44s were not built in 1967. (Never mind the fact that there are still many 747-100s still flying today, dating back to the late 60s/early 70s first build.)

amtrakowitz wrote:Found so by whom? (This is "argumentum ad verecundiam", remember.)

It was also allegedly "found" that rebuilding the Comet IIIs would be more revenue-intensive than buying new MLVs. Judging by NJT's current fiscal situation, those findings might need to be reviewed.

I already said I agree, the purchase of 429 ML's was way overboard. The comet III's certainly have useful life left in them.

amtrakowitz wrote:Comparing the Boeing 747-100 with either Comet IIIs or ALP-44s is apples and oranges, not just because it is train with plane but also due to the timeline. The Comet IIIs and ALP-44s were not built in 1967. (Never mind the fact that there are still many 747-100s still flying today, dating back to the late 60s/early 70s first build.)

Many 747-100's are still flying today? Not with most airlines. The 747 most commonly used now is the 744, which many airlines are phasing out. And age isn't only factor when retiring rolling stock. How much the fleet has been used in service is a big factor. Another factor is it it worth running the fleet longer or is it time to buy rolling stock that's cheaper to run.

Unless you got numbers as to cost of rebuilding those cars and the cost over time and cost of purchasing MLV's, you all know nothing.
Don't think as railfans that we got the answers, or do you really think no one audits the numbers ??

Its no surprise the Comet 3s were retired. Various systems of the car were VERY unreliable. Also, does "Bradley Beach" ring a bell?

Anyway, NJT rebuilt the C2s. That "simple" project turned into quite a project. And the cars still have issues 10 years after coming back from rebuild. The Comet 4s are still some of the best cars in the fleet, but they are getting long in the tooth too. So the question comes, how should (and if) the Comet 3s and 4s are rebuilt, how should they be done? Rebuilt as Comet 4s with similar systems, kind of silly to rebuild the cars with nearly 20 year old technology. The Comet 2s were rebuilt with only 5 or so year technology. So that comparison is a whole other animal...it made sense at the time, espeically with the condition of the C2s before rebuild.

When/if the C4s (and maybe the C3s, who knows) are to be rebuilt, they are going to be stripped to the shells anyway (more than likely, id assume). Thats how the Comet 2s were rebuilt. They were simply a frame and walls. If indeed it is found that it would be cheaper, or only slightly more expensive to get new cars, which would be the proper direction to go?

If it would cost you $20,000 to rebuild from the ground up, your 1987 Ford Taurus with 290,000 miles, or buy a new 2012 Ford Taurus for $25,000, which would you do?

The same argument can be made for the '44s. But we have had this discussion more times than i can count....

rebuilding is twice the labor of building a new car
first dismanteling then reconstruction, with new systems, so only savings are car body and trucks.

DutchRailnut wrote:rebuilding is twice the labor of building a new car
first dismanteling then reconstruction, with new systems, so only savings are car body and trucks.

Are you saying that existing rolling stock should always be scrapped in favor of a new fleet when the time comes for a rebuild?

morris&essex4ever wrote:

DutchRailnut wrote:rebuilding is twice the labor of building a new car
first dismanteling then reconstruction, with new systems, so only savings are car body and trucks.

Are you saying that existing rolling stock should always be scrapped in favor of a new fleet when the time comes for a rebuild?

I understood him to mean that the extra labor costs would have to be weighed against the value of reusing the body and trucks. In other words, a cost-benefit analysis of rebuilding versus purchase of new.

DutchRailnut wrote:you can't compare freight, with passenger traffic !!
as for 25Hz rant's there is no plan to replace the PL42ac's their only about 10 years old.

If they strung wires up systemwide, yes they would go away, probably to another commuter agency.

25Hz wrote:

DutchRailnut wrote:you can't compare freight, with passenger traffic !!
as for 25Hz rant's there is no plan to replace the PL42ac's their only about 10 years old.

If they strung wires up systemwide, yes they would go away, probably to another commuter agency.

Which won't happen anytime soon, so it's a moot point.

Jtgshu wrote:If it would cost you $20,000 to rebuild from the ground up, your 1987 Ford Taurus with 290,000 miles, or buy a new 2012 Ford Taurus for $25,000, which would you do?

It depends what the money is earmarked for. Where I work, capital and expense money come out of two different pots, and generally there is more capital. So a typical situation is this: our computers are too slow for a new application. We could buy more memory and faster processors for $2K with expense money or buy a whole new computer for $5K with capital. We look and see that our available money is $500 worth of expense and $10K worth of capital. Guess what we do? Does the railroad have similar distinct kinds of money?

morris&essex4ever wrote:Which won't happen anytime soon

loufah wrote:

Jtgshu wrote:If it would cost you $20,000 to rebuild from the ground up, your 1987 Ford Taurus with 290,000 miles, or buy a new 2012 Ford Taurus for $25,000, which would you do?

It depends what the money is earmarked for. Where I work, capital and expense money come out of two different pots, and generally there is more capital. So a typical situation is this: our computers are too slow for a new application. We could buy more memory and faster processors for $2K with expense money or buy a whole new computer for $5K with capital. We look and see that our available money is $500 worth of expense and $10K worth of capital. Guess what we do? Does the railroad have similar distinct kinds of money?

NJT, along with other agencies do indeed have capital and operating budgets and money for one cannot be used for the other. And according to this page, Transit has a bigger operating budget than capital budget for FY 2013.