|
|
| M-9 contract to Kawasaki (1247421) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[1 2] |
||
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|
|
|
| (1247422) | |
Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki |
|
|
Posted by Gold_12th on Fri Sep 13 23:28:03 2013, in response to M-9 contract to Kawasaki, posted by mkeit on Fri Sep 13 23:02:09 2013. surprisingly, CAF actually bid this contract. |
|
|
| (1247424) | |
The details... Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki |
|
|
Posted by Gold_12th on Fri Sep 13 23:38:13 2013, in response to M-9 contract to Kawasaki, posted by mkeit on Fri Sep 13 23:02:09 2013.    PDF page 74-75: http://www.mta.info/mta/news/books/pdf/130916_0930_LIRR.pdf |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1247425) | |
Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki |
|
|
Posted by The Orion Kid on Fri Sep 13 23:46:33 2013, in response to M-9 contract to Kawasaki, posted by mkeit on Fri Sep 13 23:02:09 2013. After the M8 fiasco they manage to get another MTA commuter rail contract? <.< MTA going your way... let's see how long these take to get delivered. |
|
|
| (1247427) | |
Re: The details... Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki |
|
|
Posted by JBar387 on Sat Sep 14 00:13:32 2013, in response to The details... Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki, posted by Gold_12th on Fri Sep 13 23:38:13 2013. I wonder if they will look a bit different from the M7's? |
|
|
| (1247428) | |
Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Sep 14 00:13:34 2013, in response to Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki, posted by The Orion Kid on Fri Sep 13 23:46:33 2013. There are rules for handling bids, and Kawasaki *mt* the specifications that went out to bid. Given how procurement laws work, they did not get disqualified as a bidder for their previous situation, and thus if they're the low QUALIFIED bidder, MTA has no choice but to grant the bid. THIW. |
|
|
| (1247430) | |
Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Sep 14 00:14:28 2013, in response to Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Sep 14 00:13:34 2013. ^ starred word that appeared as *mt* above should have been "*met" for anyone who was confused. |
|
|
| (1247431) | |
Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sat Sep 14 00:18:01 2013, in response to Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki, posted by The Orion Kid on Fri Sep 13 23:46:33 2013. Fiasco? How so? It was late, but considering it's the first US commuter rail EMU the company has made, that's a bit understandable...Or would you rather Rotem? |
|
|
| (1247432) | |
Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki |
|
|
Posted by Gold_12th on Sat Sep 14 00:21:24 2013, in response to Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki, posted by The Orion Kid on Fri Sep 13 23:46:33 2013. It wasnt a huge fiasco. |
|
|
| (1247433) | |
Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Sep 14 00:21:44 2013, in response to Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sat Sep 14 00:18:01 2013. Heh. EXCELLENT point!Personally, I'd rather see Bombardier get its act together (more jobs for upstate) and have won it, but Kawasaki is certainly a better vendor than Rotem or Breda or CAF. |
|
|
| (1247434) | |
Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki |
|
|
Posted by Gold_12th on Sat Sep 14 00:30:27 2013, in response to Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Sep 14 00:21:44 2013. Bombardier already has the R179 contract.CAF looks to be the real threat to Alstom/Kawasaki, and Bombardier for the R211 order coming soon since their in NY. |
|
|
| (1247435) | |
Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Sep 14 00:35:04 2013, in response to Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki, posted by Gold_12th on Sat Sep 14 00:30:27 2013. When it comes down to bids, it's all about MEETING the specs ... bid specs must be non-discriminatory, but they can be well-written to ensure that unqualified bidders cannot meet those specifications. All comes down to the quality of those "detailed specifications" and ensuring that any vendor that meets them provides exactly what is needed. If a "bad vendor" slips through the cracks somehow, then those specs weren't well-written.Simple as that. If Rotem met properly written specs, then the cars would not be a fail. :) |
|
|
| (1247436) | |
Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki |
|
|
Posted by grand concourse on Sat Sep 14 00:36:12 2013, in response to M-9 contract to Kawasaki, posted by mkeit on Fri Sep 13 23:02:09 2013. As long as they have the lights side by side instead of one above the other, then not too bad. I haven't rode the M8s, how are those seats compared to the M7? |
|
|
| (1247443) | |
Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sat Sep 14 00:57:10 2013, in response to Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sat Sep 14 00:18:01 2013. Their initial production items did fail the initial buff loading tests. |
|
|
| (1247444) | |
Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Sep 14 00:57:52 2013, in response to Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki, posted by WillD on Sat Sep 14 00:57:10 2013. I assume they failed "acceptance testing?" If so, then the specs were good. :) |
|
|
| (1247457) | |
Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Sep 14 07:10:21 2013, in response to Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki, posted by Gold_12th on Fri Sep 13 23:28:03 2013. Bombardier must be bidding to high.I hope there are no issues with MU'ing M-7 to M-9 with software license nonsense. |
|
|
| (1247458) | |
Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Sat Sep 14 07:12:49 2013, in response to Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki, posted by The Orion Kid on Fri Sep 13 23:46:33 2013. Why are M-8's a fiasco ?? |
|
|
| (1247459) | |
Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Sep 14 07:12:54 2013, in response to Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki, posted by Gold_12th on Sat Sep 14 00:30:27 2013. Didn't CAF build the WMATA 5K's with their derailment issues and get red-handed miswiring heater boxes ?They are also taking an eternity to produce Amtrak Viewliner-II's, which ought to be chiild's play. |
|
|
| (1247460) | |
Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Sep 14 07:13:39 2013, in response to Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki, posted by WillD on Sat Sep 14 00:57:10 2013. Was that the Viewliner-II ? |
|
|
| (1247461) | |
Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Sep 14 07:15:02 2013, in response to Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki, posted by Dutchrailnut on Sat Sep 14 07:12:49 2013. They weren't . People forget the M-7 had a very long debugging and teething period, and LIRR tweaked the propulsion and braking systems quite a lot. |
|
|
| (1247462) | |
Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Sep 14 07:17:18 2013, in response to Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki, posted by grand concourse on Sat Sep 14 00:36:12 2013. Be interesting to see if the body contour and end shell will be like the M-7 or M-8. I suspect the M-7.Interesting that BBD M-7 was derived from the BBD Montreal EMU's, yet the Kawasaski M-8's body follows the AMT car more closely. |
|
|
| (1247463) | |
Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Sat Sep 14 07:18:27 2013, in response to Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki, posted by Joe V on Sat Sep 14 07:15:02 2013. I have been operating M-8's for nearly two years now and am quite impressed with the cars, so I am kind of confused when someone who has never operated one, says they are a failure!! |
|
|
| (1247464) | |
Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Sep 14 07:22:41 2013, in response to Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki, posted by Dutchrailnut on Sat Sep 14 07:18:27 2013. That's good, considering how heavy they are.Do they use more power than an M-2 ? |
|
|
| (1247465) | |
Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Sat Sep 14 07:42:27 2013, in response to Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki, posted by Joe V on Sat Sep 14 07:22:41 2013. The car is 6000 pounds heavier than a M-2 and after seeing its performance in crash in Bridgeport, I say each pound is worth it.They use more power since a M-8 is 1060 HP per car vs 620 hp per car for M-2/4/6, its not much more as it has AC propulsion and has very little waste heat from grid resistors to regulate power. |
|
|
| (1247469) | |
Re: The details... Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki |
|
|
Posted by Newkirk Images on Sat Sep 14 08:31:30 2013, in response to Re: The details... Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki, posted by JBar387 on Sat Sep 14 00:13:32 2013. I wonder if they will look a bit different from the M7's?Redesigning the looks of the car would run into big money and slow down the new car order process. A good example would be that the R-160's look like the R-143's. The R-188's, like the R-142's. The M-9's should look almost identical to the M-7.s Bill Newkirk |
|
|
| (1247470) | |
Re: The details... Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki |
|
|
Posted by merrick1 on Sat Sep 14 08:55:10 2013, in response to Re: The details... Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki, posted by Newkirk Images on Sat Sep 14 08:31:30 2013. But they probably will look a bit different. There are almost always spotting differences between orders for the rivet counters. |
|
|
| (1247483) | |
Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Sep 14 10:32:25 2013, in response to Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki, posted by Dutchrailnut on Sat Sep 14 07:42:27 2013. Is 71% more horsepower needed for 3 more tons or do they accelerate quicker ? |
|
|
| (1247484) | |
Re: The details... Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Sep 14 10:35:17 2013, in response to Re: The details... Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki, posted by Newkirk Images on Sat Sep 14 08:31:30 2013. Redesign from what and who is the builder ?Bombardier has the body patterns for the M-7; Kawasaki for the M-8. So if the Kawasaki M-9 is to look like the M-7, Kawasaki is the one who has to do a redesign of their rigging, true ?. |
|
|
| (1247490) | |
Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Sat Sep 14 11:27:39 2013, in response to Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki, posted by Joe V on Sat Sep 14 10:32:25 2013. they do accelerate quicker but also have spare power incase of dead cars. |
|
|
| (1247491) | |
Re: The details... Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Sat Sep 14 11:28:43 2013, in response to Re: The details... Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki, posted by Joe V on Sat Sep 14 10:35:17 2013. actually the body design of both cars belongs to MTA. |
|
|
| (1247492) | |
Re: The details... Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Sep 14 11:38:40 2013, in response to Re: The details... Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki, posted by Dutchrailnut on Sat Sep 14 11:28:43 2013. OK, but now it comes to the manufacturing process, regardless of which MTA design they use, and where the boides shells are actually constructed.If M-7's came from northern Quebec and M-8 from Kobe and Lincoln, NE, the M-7 body style for the M-9 and contour would be a first for Kawaski. . but the M-8 would not. |
|
|
| (1247493) | |
Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki |
|
|
Posted by lirr42 on Sat Sep 14 11:45:56 2013, in response to Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki, posted by Joe V on Sat Sep 14 07:10:21 2013. As per the RFI, the M9's and M7's don't have to be interoperable. They just have to couple together for emergency/other non-revenue moves. |
|
|
| (1247494) | |
Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki |
|
|
Posted by SubwaySurf on Sat Sep 14 11:47:23 2013, in response to Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki, posted by Dutchrailnut on Sat Sep 14 07:12:49 2013. Ahhhh, ignore him. Whad ya expect from a bus foamer? 8-)Peace, Andee |
|
|
| (1247495) | |
Re: The details... Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Sat Sep 14 11:48:07 2013, in response to Re: The details... Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki, posted by Joe V on Sat Sep 14 11:38:40 2013. They have to go with M-7 shells or it won't fit on LIRR.as for Kawasaki they manufacture entire car in Lincoln Nebr. even the shells. only reason first 38 M-8's came from Japan was prototype and the Lincoln plant was still making subway cars so Kawasaki had to make deadline and got permission. |
|
|
| (1247511) | |
Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sat Sep 14 15:05:28 2013, in response to Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki, posted by lirr42 on Sat Sep 14 11:45:56 2013. STUPID!!!!! |
|
|
| (1247567) | |
Re: The details... Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki |
|
|
Posted by Newkirk Images on Sat Sep 14 20:39:26 2013, in response to Re: The details... Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki, posted by Joe V on Sat Sep 14 10:35:17 2013. Redesign from what and who is the builder ?I never suggested a redesign of the M-9. The poster before me asked if the M-9 would look different, maybe like the M-8's with the Edsel headlight bezel. To keep costs low, no design changes would be best. However, there is the issue with the pants pocket destroying arm rests. I'm sure, that design would change. Bill Newkirk |
|
|
| (1247579) | |
Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki |
|
|
Posted by Sand Box John on Sat Sep 14 21:36:10 2013, in response to Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki, posted by Joe V on Sat Sep 14 07:12:54 2013. Didn't CAF build the WMATA 5K's with their derailment issues and get red-handed miswiring heater boxes ?Don't recall the heater box issue, yes the 5k car were manufactured CAF. I would hazard a guess that one of the reason why WMATA went with the procure prototype for testing and evaluation before committing to a design specification route. They also had a few issues with the 6k after they were put into revenue service. John in the sand box of Maryland's eastern shore. |
|
|
| (1247607) | |
Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Sat Sep 14 23:16:03 2013, in response to Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki, posted by randyo on Sat Sep 14 15:05:28 2013. IAWTP. WHAT THE HELL ARE THEY THINKING? |
|
|
| (1247609) | |
Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Sep 14 23:29:34 2013, in response to Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki, posted by 3-9 on Sat Sep 14 23:16:03 2013. Probably licensing costs for using proprietary train control software and firmware from another vendor. That's the game these days - "lock-in" by proprietary stuff. Sorta like what happened with CBTC. |
|
|
| (1247618) | |
Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Sep 15 01:05:50 2013, in response to Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Sep 14 23:29:34 2013. Back when planners and new car engineers had some degree of intelligence, car contracts specified the types of cars with which the new cars had to be compatible. In the case of the SMEEs it was any cars from the R-10 the last contract number prior to the one being solicited. In the case of the NTTs contracts could and should specify for example that the R-119 should be fully compatible with R-143 through 160. |
|
|
| (1247621) | |
Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Sep 15 01:32:21 2013, in response to Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki, posted by randyo on Sun Sep 15 01:05:50 2013. Agreed ... however this is the age of lawyers, and they work for the vendors for the purpoe of strongarming future contracts. You end up with a vendor who decides to use proprietary stuff and if you want to in any way reproduce that functionality, you and the vendor who did so for you ends up in court. It's a major problem in technology these days with patent trolls on top of all that.So wouldn't surprise me if the decision was made to avoid those costs and buy more cars for the money allocated. Things ain't at all the way they used to be, and idiot judges don't understand the concept of "essential patents" nor "standards-essential patents" anymore. :( |
|
|
| (1247629) | |
Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Sun Sep 15 03:35:16 2013, in response to Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Sep 15 01:32:21 2013. If that's the case, maybe the MTA should a) get accurate interface specs and get the rights to have it reproduced for any of their equipment; b) go back to using SMEE or something they can reproduce without the legal issues. :-( |
|
|
| (1247630) | |
Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Sep 15 03:43:19 2013, in response to Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki, posted by 3-9 on Sun Sep 15 03:35:16 2013. Unfortunately, setting "open standards" is considered communism by too many these days, and ISO is Germany marching into Poland philosophically. CBTC turned out that way, as I'm sure has much of the tech since. I'm sure they've tried to do that and only ended up with "no bid" ... ever wonder why there's no Siemens trains? They're a pretty good manufacturer, but they do things their own way. |
|
|
| (1247639) | |
Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Sep 15 07:32:08 2013, in response to Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki, posted by 3-9 on Sun Sep 15 03:35:16 2013. CTA won't have this problem. From what others says on the Chicago forum group, the future 7K's will be compatible with the 5K's.I think MTA is letting themselves be bamboozled too much by suppliers. The nonsense of 2 set max for a consist for CBTC is another example. |
|
|
| (1247726) | |
Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 15 20:57:09 2013, in response to Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki, posted by Sand Box John on Sat Sep 14 21:36:10 2013. is that one of the reasons the MTA is building a prototype of the 179? |
|
|
| (1247729) | |
Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki |
|
|
Posted by Sand Box John on Sun Sep 15 21:05:57 2013, in response to Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki, posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 15 20:57:09 2013. is that one of the reasons the MTA is building a prototype of the 179?Form what I have read here, NYCT has procured prototypes on several rolling stock orders before committing to the vendors design. John in the sand box of Maryland's eastern shore. |
|
|
| (1247766) | |
Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki |
|
|
Posted by Jrice on Mon Sep 16 08:24:51 2013, in response to Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki, posted by Dutchrailnut on Sat Sep 14 07:42:27 2013. I was very impressed with the condition of those M-8's after the crash. I am sure a lot of the MN staff were too! Plus, I like the look of them. |
|
|
| (1247767) | |
Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki |
|
|
Posted by Jrice on Mon Sep 16 08:25:58 2013, in response to Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki, posted by Joe V on Sat Sep 14 07:17:18 2013. The M-9's will be nearly identical to the M-7's for LIRR clearances. |
|
|
| (1247768) | |
Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki |
|
|
Posted by ClearAspect on Mon Sep 16 08:58:34 2013, in response to Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki, posted by Dutchrailnut on Sat Sep 14 07:18:27 2013. I love the cars, they look beautiful and I've seen them on the move, I have yet to ride them. How comfortable is the Operating Cab? The R160s are quite comfy except for where the controller is (after 2 trips on the F my wrist wants to die) |
|
|
| (1247769) | |
Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki |
|
|
Posted by ClearAspect on Mon Sep 16 09:03:47 2013, in response to Re: M-9 contract to Kawasaki, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Sep 15 03:43:19 2013. Supposedly Selkirk the MTA in the future will be changing out the CBTC system on the L to L-Seltrac CBTC, (the one being installed on the 7)The CBTC Is currently used on London Docklands LRT. London Underground: Jubilee, Northern and Piccadilly Lines . Beijing Line 4. Guangzhou Line 3. MTR Disneyland Resort Line, Hong Kong. MTR Ma On Shan Rail, Hong Kong. MTR West Rail, Hong Kong. Shanghai Lines 6, 7, 8, 9, 11. Wuhan LRT. So the CBTC system being installed is a tried and tested CBTC that actually has proven itself. So once the CBTC is upgraded on the L alot of those issues will be no longer such. |
|
|
[1 2] |
||
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|
