M9 and M9A Procurement & Acceptance

Discussion of the past and present operations of the Long Island Rail Road.

Moderator: Liquidcamphor

Post Reply
BuddR32
Posts: 259
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2014 2:14 pm

Re: M9 and M9A Procurement & Acceptance

Post by BuddR32 » Tue May 21, 2019 11:51 pm

geico wrote:M9s delayed again as per Eng. No new date announced.

Whats the issue now?

first cars have been on the property over a year now and we still cannot use them.
Doesn't matter how long they're on the property. They don't belong to the railroad yet. The railroad cannot use,nor will the railroad accept them until they pass acceptance testing.

geico
Posts: 433
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 5:54 pm

Re: M9 and M9A Procurement & Acceptance

Post by geico » Wed May 22, 2019 9:15 am

Yea I know they dont own them yet...
To a commuter/tax payer point of view. its unacceptable that a product takes this long to build, implement and test. Regardless of a vendor or RR fault. The riding public and taxpayers deserve better. Your statement only feeds in to the issues where the riders and taxpayers are quite frankly pissed off. The contract for M9s was let in 2013. Thats 6 years and we still dont have anything to show for it.

The new TZ bridge was built faster.

DutchRailnut
Posts: 22205
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: released from Stalag 13
Contact:

Re: M9 and M9A Procurement & Acceptance

Post by DutchRailnut » Wed May 22, 2019 4:41 pm

so you suggest they accept a product that does not comply ??? the tax payers did not pay for it yet, but you suggest LIRR accepts a product with flaws ??
If Conductors are in charge, why are they promoted to be Engineer???

Retired Triebfahrzeugführer. I am not a moderator.

Absolute-Limited Advance-Approach
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2018 12:47 pm

Re: M9 and M9A Procurement & Acceptance

Post by Absolute-Limited Advance-Approach » Wed May 22, 2019 4:42 pm

geico wrote:

The new TZ bridge was built faster.


And the A320neo was built slower (10 years) even though a lot of it was copy/paste from an existing design.

Above all else, the Commuters deserve a safe railcar that will function as intended and the price of rushing to chase a deadline, well known and written in blood

Right now there are plenty of people working hard to keep the project moving as quickly as possible. The fact that it's about a year behind schedule after Typhoons, shipping issues and resetworthy issues is a small miracle considering the setbacks. But all the same, it has to be this way.

Head-end View
Posts: 2644
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:00 pm
Location: The second row on a SEPTA Silverliner V

Re: M9 and M9A Procurement & Acceptance

Post by Head-end View » Wed May 22, 2019 7:32 pm

Frustrating as it is, it's better they take their time and do it right so as not to repeat the 1969-70 debacle of the M-1s. A substantial number of the early deliveries were rushed into service without sufficient testing and developed propulsion problems soon after. Then they were sidelined for around a year while getting modifications and repairs.

And anyway, I hope the M-3's will be here for a while yet, because once they're gone, there will be no more front-window viewing on LIRR and our friend Dutch will be a happy man. LOL

geico
Posts: 433
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 5:54 pm

Re: M9 and M9A Procurement & Acceptance

Post by geico » Wed May 22, 2019 9:25 pm

DutchRailnut wrote:so you suggest they accept a product that does not comply ??? the tax payers did not pay for it yet, but you suggest LIRR accepts a product with flaws ??
my point is that someone needs to be held accountable for the delays and over runs.

gregorygrice
Posts: 1105
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 4:39 pm
Location: Queens, NY
Contact:

Re: M9 and M9A Procurement & Acceptance

Post by gregorygrice » Thu May 23, 2019 1:06 am

Many have been held accountable already. Stop complaining and be patient. It's not that big of a deal.
Last edited by gregorygrice on Thu May 23, 2019 11:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

geico
Posts: 433
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 5:54 pm

Re: M9 and M9A Procurement & Acceptance

Post by geico » Thu May 23, 2019 9:25 am

gregorygrice wrote:Many have been held accountable already. Stop complaining and be patient. It's not that bug of a deal.
Really??? All I've seen it the final price for the 92 cars going up and the deliveries getting later... The only people who seem to be accountable are the tax payers who are going to get a bigger bill at the end....

And you can come ride M3s that are falling apart daily if you want to say its not that big of a deal. Between the seats and the shocks..... the only saving grace is the RFW

SwingMan
Posts: 2290
Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2006 7:52 pm

Re: M9 and M9A Procurement & Acceptance

Post by SwingMan » Thu May 23, 2019 10:28 am

The people who need to be accountable are the ones that have created incredibly high standards for safety features and other characteristics that need to be addressed creating these issues. Complaining that your taxpayer dollars are being wasted and people that are genuinely working to address the issues day in and day out address the issues "need to be held accountable" is the exact reason nothing is ever completed fluently.

The fact is, equipment in 2019 have to go through more hoops than ever with the implementation of government forced safety features. Then of course you are not going to get the best product with the lowest bidder. In some cases you are lucky to even get the products period (i.e. the Amtrak Viewliner order).

And you want to complain that your taxpayer dollars are being wasted? How about the employees paying the same taxes and having to work these same trains that the public rides? Do you think the employees like the M3s as much as the next person? The fact is you are only hurting yourself and the rest of us taxpayers by demanding things, because that does not solve anything other than create an even worse situation than before.

The fact the company put it out to the public that these trains were going into service this week was completely irresponsible and created unnecessary backlash that would have otherwise not been there.

geico
Posts: 433
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 5:54 pm

Re: M9 and M9A Procurement & Acceptance

Post by geico » Thu May 23, 2019 11:03 am

The employees get to ride for free as part of the benefit packages, as do their family. They shouldnt complain. The workers working the equipment, yes have to deal with the busted doors, cruddy bathrooms, etc... and can complain.

Why is is wrong for the taxpayer to ask why this is taking so long? Why is it all messed up? I am not demanding anything other than whomever is responsible pay for their mistakes and not have it fall on joe taxpayer to pay for all the extra time for testing the equipment so it is right. Why is it wrong for the taxpayer to ask how the LIRR messed up and didnt design the cars with enough room for PTC in 2015 when it was already mandated. Why is it wrong that there have been 100s of change orders from the LIRR because they didnt follow an FRA spec for crash protection.

Why is it wrong for the taxpayer not to expect Kawasaki to pay for the all the extra testing time and manpower needed to get the cars running right?

No one wants bad or unsafe equipment. The taxpayers should expect that it be delivered close to on time and on budget from the LIRR and its contractors. The first 92 cars are $50 million over the original budget and at least 18 months late at this point.

ConstanceR46
Posts: 380
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 10:57 pm

Re: M9 and M9A Procurement & Acceptance

Post by ConstanceR46 » Thu May 23, 2019 2:54 pm

I don't see how safety requirements are a problem; until we get PTC and other improvements that make euro-standards plausible, cars needa stand up to impacts, especially flat-front ones

BuddR32
Posts: 259
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2014 2:14 pm

Re: M9 and M9A Procurement & Acceptance

Post by BuddR32 » Tue May 28, 2019 1:59 am

geico wrote:The employees get to ride for free as part of the benefit packages, as do their family. They shouldnt complain. The workers working the equipment, yes have to deal with the busted doors, cruddy bathrooms, etc... and can complain.

Why is is wrong for the taxpayer to ask why this is taking so long? Why is it all messed up? I am not demanding anything other than whomever is responsible pay for their mistakes and not have it fall on joe taxpayer to pay for all the extra time for testing the equipment so it is right. Why is it wrong for the taxpayer to ask how the LIRR messed up and didnt design the cars with enough room for PTC in 2015 when it was already mandated. Why is it wrong that there have been 100s of change orders from the LIRR because they didnt follow an FRA spec for crash protection.

Why is it wrong for the taxpayer not to expect Kawasaki to pay for the all the extra testing time and manpower needed to get the cars running right?

No one wants bad or unsafe equipment. The taxpayers should expect that it be delivered close to on time and on budget from the LIRR and its contractors. The first 92 cars are $50 million over the original budget and at least 18 months late at this point.
Please allow me to respectfully answer some of your concerns.

PTC Space: At the time the request for proposals went out, PTC was completely an unknown. There was no developed technology, no proven contractors (some say still), and only a Federal mandate to put it in. No one knew how much onboard space would have been needed, only an estimate. The estimate was wrong, and the change order was at cost to LIRR

Crashworthyness: The FRA crashworthyness standards were changed after the bid was awarded. After a collision at Metro North tore open the B-end of one of the M8s. Prior to M9, no collision posts were required on the B-end of married pair MU equipment, thinking they'd never be head end to hit something. That accident gave the FRA a new perspective, one which they made an IMMEDIATE change to the regs, to all not yet built equipment. (M9) Usually these changes have an inservice or ordered by provision, but the FRA left out the ordered by provision because they didnt want another generation (40 years) of EMUs rolling around without it. This cost was fully born by LIRR, and also delayed the design.

The derailment of the pilot cars set back delivery & testing for obvious reasons, this cost was NOT LIRR.

Change orders are expensive, and believe it or not, they've been kept to a minimum. You want the cars without delay, that's fine, be annoyed even. Passenger cars are odd machines and almost always do not go into service without hitches. They're not like freight cars that are mass produced to standard (mainly) specifications. Passengers have needs, demands and desires. One region differs from another, and each railroad has their own differences. These take time, and for whatever reason don't always work as planned. Look at the Septa Silverliner V, all the truck frames had to be recast!

Don't wish the M3s away, wish they were better maintained! Taxpayers would cry when they see the price tag on the high tech fleet equipment repairs and obsolescence upgrades. M3 parts are cheap!

gregorygrice
Posts: 1105
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 4:39 pm
Location: Queens, NY
Contact:

Re: M9 and M9A Procurement & Acceptance

Post by gregorygrice » Tue May 28, 2019 10:28 am

^Thank you!^ And there is so much more going on behind the scenes that you may not see or hear about so be patient. You are making a big deal over something minor on a railroad forum...

geico
Posts: 433
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 5:54 pm

Re: M9 and M9A Procurement & Acceptance

Post by geico » Tue May 28, 2019 1:10 pm

BuddR32 wrote:
geico wrote:The employees get to ride for free as part of the benefit packages, as do their family. They shouldnt complain. The workers working the equipment, yes have to deal with the busted doors, cruddy bathrooms, etc... and can complain.

Why is is wrong for the taxpayer to ask why this is taking so long? Why is it all messed up? I am not demanding anything other than whomever is responsible pay for their mistakes and not have it fall on joe taxpayer to pay for all the extra time for testing the equipment so it is right. Why is it wrong for the taxpayer to ask how the LIRR messed up and didnt design the cars with enough room for PTC in 2015 when it was already mandated. Why is it wrong that there have been 100s of change orders from the LIRR because they didnt follow an FRA spec for crash protection.

Why is it wrong for the taxpayer not to expect Kawasaki to pay for the all the extra testing time and manpower needed to get the cars running right?

No one wants bad or unsafe equipment. The taxpayers should expect that it be delivered close to on time and on budget from the LIRR and its contractors. The first 92 cars are $50 million over the original budget and at least 18 months late at this point.
Please allow me to respectfully answer some of your concerns.

PTC Space: At the time the request for proposals went out, PTC was completely an unknown. There was no developed technology, no proven contractors (some say still), and only a Federal mandate to put it in. No one knew how much onboard space would have been needed, only an estimate. The estimate was wrong, and the change order was at cost to LIRR

Crashworthyness: The FRA crashworthyness standards were changed after the bid was awarded. After a collision at Metro North tore open the B-end of one of the M8s. Prior to M9, no collision posts were required on the B-end of married pair MU equipment, thinking they'd never be head end to hit something. That accident gave the FRA a new perspective, one which they made an IMMEDIATE change to the regs, to all not yet built equipment. (M9) Usually these changes have an inservice or ordered by provision, but the FRA left out the ordered by provision because they didnt want another generation (40 years) of EMUs rolling around without it. This cost was fully born by LIRR, and also delayed the design.

The derailment of the pilot cars set back delivery & testing for obvious reasons, this cost was NOT LIRR.

Change orders are expensive, and believe it or not, they've been kept to a minimum. You want the cars without delay, that's fine, be annoyed even. Passenger cars are odd machines and almost always do not go into service without hitches. They're not like freight cars that are mass produced to standard (mainly) specifications. Passengers have needs, demands and desires. One region differs from another, and each railroad has their own differences. These take time, and for whatever reason don't always work as planned. Look at the Septa Silverliner V, all the truck frames had to be recast!

Don't wish the M3s away, wish they were better maintained! Taxpayers would cry when they see the price tag on the high tech fleet equipment repairs and obsolescence upgrades. M3 parts are cheap!

Thank you for some reasonable explanations other than "deal with it answers"
It still does not explain how Kawasaki let thing gets this bad either (so much for Japanese engineering and quality...)

No one would complain about the M3s if the LIRR actually maintained them to some degree of reason...

Yes, change orders are expensive. the one changing the front end colors and adding the blue stripe is jsut a waste of money... thanks Cuomo

Fan Railer
Posts: 2197
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 9:32 pm

Re: M9 and M9A Procurement & Acceptance

Post by Fan Railer » Sat Jun 01, 2019 9:04 am

Still ironing out software bugs. Something with the doors not behaving.

Post Reply

Return to “Long Island Rail Road (LIRR)”