Septa Trolley Modernization - Alstom Fleet

I've heard tell that it's getting to be standard practice to bid low to get the contract and make it up on the change orders, which are cost-plus. Don't know whether that's "urban legend" or there's some truth to it.

Is there any unused light rail routes that the Kawasaki cars be assigned when these new cars enter service on the present routes?. Recognize that the overhead CAT and feeders might need replacing? Been too long since was in PHL.

west point wrote: ↑Sun Jun 04, 2023 6:38 pm Is there any unused light rail routes that the Kawasaki cars be assigned when these new cars enter service on the present routes?. Recognize that the overhead CAT and feeders might need replacing? Been too long since was in PHL.

Their lack of ADA accessibility makes them unusable on any other route. Any route that gets reactivated must be done with accessible equipment.

https://wellsvillesun.com/blog/2023/06/ ... n-hornell/

BREAKING NEWS: Another street car contract worth $718 million secured by Alstom in Hornell

The contracts for Alstom employees in Hornell continue to roll in.

Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) officials told the Hornell Sun an agreement has been reached for ALSTOM employees to make 130 low-floor street cars and there is an option for another 30.

SEPTA said there is a signed contract for Citadis light-rail vehicles.

The contract for the 130 cars is worth $712.2 million, SEPTA officials said. That does not include the additional 30 cars, if needed.
...

Why does it cost 5 1/2 million dollars per vehicle?

Now that Alstom owns the Bombardier rail division, the company has two facilities: Hornell and Plattsburgh.

These Alstom cars, $5.69mil per car, at 80 ft long cost $71,153 per foot.

The 2014 MBTA Type 9’s are $4.91mil per car. Adjusted for inflation is $6.2mil per car. 74 feet of car is $66,411 per foot, and adjusted for inflation is $84.259 per foot.

Does anyone have a cost for the Kawasaki cars?

"the Kawasaki cars have held up well over time": last year I said that they were in better shape at age 41 than I was at age 41 (which was, ulp, 28 years ago). But a few days ago I noticed that a trolley operator had to keep pushing the doors closed so he could leave the stops, and while the cars often display a date circa 1979 on their electronic signs, they usually have correct destination signs, but last week I rode a 101 that stubbornly displayed a 102 electronic sign inside and out from 69th St. out onto the Media line (and maybe all the way to Media). I wonder whether the Kawasaki cars are starting to wear out.

SD - Addressing these two K-car problems you describe:
1-The electronic destination signs are around 20 years old (early 2000s I believe) replacing the original
rollsigns that the entire fleet had for the LRV/trolley routes. 1979 is actually before the fleet was built (1980-81).
2-A door problem can affect ANY transit vehicle of ANY age - not singling out the K-cars here.

I will mention recent examples that I have learned of and noticed on a certain type of Suffolk (County) Transit
(Long Island, NY) bus - 2010 Daimler/Chrysler Orion - that are similar to what you have noted with the K-cars:
1-The electronic destination signs sometimes will automatically reset to the opposite of the desired terminal
on a given route - even though the driver may not notice until a rider asks if the sign is correct...
2-On a recent ride a driver was having problems with the rear exit doors sticking in the open position - these
buses will not move unless the doors close correctly - the driver closed the doors manually with a reset than
a quick bus shutdown and restart solved the problem at that point...MACTRAXX

ekt8750 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 9:15 pm Alstom was rewarded the contract to build 130 new LRVs with an option for 30 more.

https://www.inquirer.com/transportation ... utType=amp

Looking at the order, unfortunately it seems the new vehicles will have fixed trucks rather than pivoting ones.

It also seems the new vehicles will be bi-directional, which will put an end to all turning loops once the exisiting K cars are withdrawn, so the land taken up by the loops will be available for something else.

EDIT: Since the wires will be replaced, would providing the new vehicles with batteries allow some sections of wiring to simply be removed rather than replaced?

WashingtonPark wrote: ↑Sat Jun 10, 2023 7:16 am Why does it cost 5 1/2 million dollars per vehicle?

Is it because they need to be customized to fit the tight curves and the uncommon gauge? I don't suppose those curves could be eased and apparently changing the track gauge to standard, unlike migrating from trolley-pole to pantograph current collection or from unidirectional to bidirectional running, is more complicated than it is worth, even though dual gauge track between the two is possible.

Why is the fixed truck design "unfortunate"? Given that every manufacturer of low floor tram designs has adopted the fixed truck, it seems a preferable design decision for systems using low platforms.

The wide gauge in Philadelphia (5' 2.5" or 5' 2.25" depending on source) or close enough to 4' 8,5" that I doubt that's the reason for the cost and Alstom has extensive experience building this design of car for the multitude of tram gauges in Europe. These cars cost less per vehicle than what Toronto paid for the same model in 2019, but I really can't find details on the differences between the Toronto and Philadelphia designs.

I found a statement that the current trolleys are designed to carry only 45 passengers while the new trolleys have a design capacity of 120 passengers, but I don't have full confidence in either of those statements.

Regauging dozens of miles of track, especially with most being street running, would be hugely disruptive. Major sections would need to be shut down concurrently until the work was completed, including all S-S lines.

As far as dual gauge is concerned, my understanding has long been that the steam railroad companies forced 5' 2½" (PA trolley gauge) on trolley operators as a way of making dual-gauge track impractical or impossible. The six-inch difference is too broad to allow wide-flange wheels but too close for things like switch points to operate. Can anyone confirm/debunk?

RandallW wrote: ↑Fri Jan 12, 2024 5:01 am Why is the fixed truck design "unfortunate"? Given that every manufacturer of low floor tram designs has adopted the fixed truck, it seems a preferable design decision for systems using low platforms.

No because there are pivoting truck low floor designs available such as the Citadis classic.

RandallW wrote: ↑Fri Jan 12, 2024 5:01 am The wide gauge in Philadelphia (5' 2.5" or 5' 2.25" depending on source) or close enough to 4' 8,5" that I doubt that's the reason for the cost and Alstom has extensive experience building this design of car for the multitude of tram gauges in Europe. These cars cost less per vehicle than what Toronto paid for the same model in 2019, but I really can't find details on the differences between the Toronto and Philadelphia designs.

Isn't this cost difference enough that this gauge would not be a good choice for a new build system?

The problems with fixed trucks are explained in another thread, curves, grades and LFLRVs.

Will be interesting to see how the Citadis works out at SEPTA. In theory, the Flexity Outlook Toronto downtown car was a very close match - tight curve radius, wider gauge, able to use trolley pole or panto - but clearly post merger the Alstom portfolio is in ascendant over the Bombardier one, so we shouldn’t expect to see many more Flexity orders, at least from new customers. At least by the time Citadis shows up in Philly, presumably the bogie issues which have been such a disaster in Ottawa will be fully resolved.