M9 and M9A Procurement & Acceptance

Are you guys sure? I could be wrong, but from this paragraph about the M9-A's out of the RFP, I see a lot of LIRR's and almost no mention of MN:

MTA LIRR - RFP #929 - M-9 Passengers Cars wrote:LIRR also intends to procure 160 M-9A Cars, which will be solicited separately and in a subsequent RFP pursuant to Federal procurement laws and regulations. In previous Requests for Expression of Interest published between August 2008 and September 2011, LIRR initially determined that the M-9 and M-9A Cars would be procured in two separate but related procurements concurrently. However, LIRR has now determined that it will purchase the M-9A Cars in a subsequent procurement, which is scheduled for June 2013. The M-9A Cars will be solicited based upon substantially identical Technical Provisions as the M-9 Cars, and must be interoperable with M-9 Cars. To the extent feasible, the Railroads will seek to maximize the commonality of Parts and Systems between the M-9 and M-9A. The M-9 Contractor will be responsible for providing complete technical information and rights to such information so as to permit the subsequent production of fully interoperable M-9A Cars.

Lirr42, are you implying that Dutch may be mistaken??????

Head-end View wrote:Lirr42, are you implying that Dutch may be mistaken??????

I am asking for clarification. In that block of text above I see no mention of Metro-North anywhere. It seems strange (to me at least) that we're going to have M9A's for Metro-North and there isn't anything in that paragraph that even seems like MN's getting a piece of the M9A.

There are a lot of different M9 threads on this forum, I'm trying to find them all so I can get a better picture of what's going on. I do specifically remember at some point that Mr. Railnut mentioned something along the lines of that the MN cars would not be subject to the Buy America regulations. Question 1 on page 4 of this document (http://web.mta.info/lirr/about/Procurem ... uiries.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) states that the M9 cars would not be subject to Buy America laws while the M9A would. How would MN's cars (which wouldn't be subject to the Buy America Act) be M9A's when they have to comply with the Buy America act?

It's confusing. I've sent an e-mail to the MTA asking for clarification. While I don't think we're going to get any, it's worth a shot anyways.

lirr42 wrote:Are you guys sure? I could be wrong, but from this paragraph about the M9-A's out of the RFP, I see a lot of LIRR's and almost no mention of MN:

MTA LIRR - RFP #929 - M-9 Passengers Cars wrote:LIRR also intends to procure 160 M-9A Cars, which will be solicited separately and in a subsequent RFP pursuant to Federal procurement laws and regulations. In previous Requests for Expression of Interest published between August 2008 and September 2011, LIRR initially determined that the M-9 and M-9A Cars would be procured in two separate but related procurements concurrently. However, LIRR has now determined that it will purchase the M-9A Cars in a subsequent procurement, which is scheduled for June 2013. The M-9A Cars will be solicited based upon substantially identical Technical Provisions as the M-9 Cars, and must be interoperable with M-9 Cars. To the extent feasible, the Railroads will seek to maximize the commonality of Parts and Systems between the M-9 and M-9A. The M-9 Contractor will be responsible for providing complete technical information and rights to such information so as to permit the subsequent production of fully interoperable M-9A Cars.

Probably because LIRR is the lead agency in the procurement. Look at the sentence "To the extent feasible, the Railroads will seek to maximize the commonality of Parts and Systems between the M-9 and M-9A." To me that seems to indicate the M-9 and M-9A belonging to LIRR And MNR respectively.

inthebag wrote:

lirr42 wrote:Are you guys sure? I could be wrong, but from this paragraph about the M9-A's out of the RFP, I see a lot of LIRR's and almost no mention of MN:

MTA LIRR - RFP #929 - M-9 Passengers Cars wrote:LIRR also intends to procure 160 M-9A Cars, which will be solicited separately and in a subsequent RFP pursuant to Federal procurement laws and regulations. In previous Requests for Expression of Interest published between August 2008 and September 2011, LIRR initially determined that the M-9 and M-9A Cars would be procured in two separate but related procurements concurrently. However, LIRR has now determined that it will purchase the M-9A Cars in a subsequent procurement, which is scheduled for June 2013. The M-9A Cars will be solicited based upon substantially identical Technical Provisions as the M-9 Cars, and must be interoperable with M-9 Cars. To the extent feasible, the Railroads will seek to maximize the commonality of Parts and Systems between the M-9 and M-9A. The M-9 Contractor will be responsible for providing complete technical information and rights to such information so as to permit the subsequent production of fully interoperable M-9A Cars.

Probably because LIRR is the lead agency in the procurement. Look at the sentence "To the extent feasible, the Railroads will seek to maximize the commonality of Parts and Systems between the M-9 and M-9A." To me that seems to indicate the M-9 and M-9A belonging to LIRR And MNR respectively.

It could just be a typo in the announcement. ...A's = MNRR 3rd rail units. Have been ever since the M1's. This probably isn't worth overthinking to quite this extreme a degree because you only have to look at the history of these orders for the logic to sort itself out. MNRR is taking extra time to chew on potential multilevel solutions that would address its Hudson/Harlem/GCT capacity problem that only allows them to go higher, not longer. If they don't see a match (odds favor them not finding one), they'll come home and take their 9A option. If they do find a multilevel fit, and deviate from LIRR's fleet, then those 9A options either stay unexercised or LIRR can poach them as tack-ons to the regular 9's. If that comes to pass there would be no reason whatsoever for LIRR to take cars built as MNRR 9A's for their option. They would be built as LIRR 9's 100% identical to the rest of the order. It would be silly for them to have parts of this procurement running on their track with even the slightest differences between batches.

I would imagine the 100% trainlining compatibility thing in the specs has to do in part with if MNRR subsequently finds a more mature multilevel model 10 years out or whatever that does lick its acute seating capacity problem. In which case the 9A's can be shipped to LIRR with easier modification than, say, the 7's could. Probably would not happen, but why not cover all bases anyway in the specs while they have the chance. That's just smart procurement strategy.


Otherwise, there's nothing mysterious about this. MNRR needs extra time to study solutions for its capacity crunch...backloading its option is smart. The announcement was clumsily-worded...PR flaks mangle 'em from time to time. Occam's Razor, folks.

Though the initial order of M-9s will be used by LIRR, the design will include "reversible" third rail shoes to allow for potential future operations involving both LIRR and Metro-North. LIRR operates with overrunning third rail shoes, while Metro-North utilizes shoes running underneath the third rail. Both Metro-North and LIRR already have tested this concept with existing M-7 and M7A EMUs, one source says.- Railway Age

freightguy wrote:Though the initial order of M-9s will be used by LIRR, the design will include "reversible" third rail shoes to allow for potential future operations involving both LIRR and Metro-North. LIRR operates with overrunning third rail shoes, while Metro-North utilizes shoes running underneath the third rail. Both Metro-North and LIRR already have tested this concept with existing M-7 and M7A EMUs, one source says.- Railway Age

Not really. It's more the ease of being able to buy 1 common part to service the entire 7/7A/9/9A fleets. Yes, in theory they could interoperate or transfer between roads. But thru-running? There's a several-mile gap between 3rd rail territories any which way you slice it and few viable routings worth trying at some deep-future point. It's vanishingly unlikely to be needed in the lifespans of these vehicles. To go from LIRR to MNRR requires an M8 out of Penn going to New Haven only were the 8 outfitted with LIRR's extra signal aspects. The only Hudson Line possibilities (if Penn is even configured right to get all the way over to the Empire platforms) require a DM30AC or P32 dual-mode or some replacement that actually works for decent distance on 3rd rail. And there is zero way to get to the Harlem Line...it's all cumbersome reverse moves.


Railway Age is getting a little carried away there with what's theoretically possible vs. practically possible. The reason they're standardizing on flippable shoes is so they can stuff a warehouse full of them and never have to buy differing replacement parts.

For Immediate Release: September 18, 2013
GOVERNOR CUOMO ANNOUNCES $1.8 BILLION AWARD TO BUILD 676 NEW LIRR AND METRO-NORTH RAIL CARS

New M9 Rail Cars Are Expected to be Assembled in Yonkers, Employing 1,500 People in New York State


Governor Andrew M. Cuomo today announced that the Board of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) has approved a contract with Kawasaki Rail Car, Inc. for up to $1.83 billion to design and build the next generation of rail cars for the Long Island Rail Road and Metro-North Railroad. The MTA expects up to 676 cars will be assembled at Kawasaki’s plant in Yonkers and anticipates up to 1,500 people will be employed in New York State.

“We have been constantly working to improve the state’s infrastructure and transit systems to better serve New Yorkers,” said Governor Cuomo. “This contract will not only make the Metro-North and LIRR more efficient and resilient, but the additional cars will be assembled right here in New York, helping create jobs and grow the regional economy. I thank Kawasaki Rail Car for their partnership and look forward to seeing further upgrades to our mass transit system.”

The cars will be used to replace 1980s-era M3 railcars that serve the LIRR’s eight electric branches and Metro-North’s Harlem and Hudson Lines and to expand fleet capacity for both railroads to allow for ridership growth. A portion of this contract and related development costs are funded with $355.5 million from the MTA’s 2010-2014 Capital Plan. The initial contract will provide 92 cars to the LIRR. If funding is available in the forthcoming 2015-2019 MTA Capital Plan and the railroads choose to exercise future options, Kawasaki will manufacture up to 304 additional cars for the LIRR and up to 280 cars for Metro-North.

The cars will incorporate the most successful and popular features of the railroads’ two recent electric car classes, the M7s that serve the LIRR and Metro-North’s Harlem and Hudson Lines, and the M8s serving Metro-North’s New Haven Line. The cars will have larger windows than the M3 cars they are replacing, automated public address announcements in car interiors and exteriors, and single leaf doors for improved reliability. They will also continue the M7/M8 configuration for heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems that has proven to be more resilient in extreme weather and more effective at providing customer comfort in all types of weather conditions.

"I am happy to congratulate Kawasaki Rail Car on winning the M-9 contract," said Senate Democratic Conference Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins. "I have had the privilege of working with Kawasaki since they moved to Yonkers. Their presence supports the regional economy and sustains hundreds of jobs in the City's downtown. These are some of the reasons why I am proud to support them and look forward to many more years of partnership."

Assemblyman J. Gary Pretlow said, “This contract is good news for our state. With its highly reputable track record as the MTA'a leading and trusted supplier of new subway cars, riders who rely on Metro-North (and the LIRR) can be assured that the safety, reliability and efficiency of the M9 rail cars will enhance their daily commute. I am thrilled that Kawasaki Rail Car, Inc. will continue to serve the constituents of Westchester County, New York City and Long Island.”

“While we spend a lot of time and energy modernizing our railroads’ aging infrastructure, few improvements are more visible and more welcomed by customers than updating our trains,” said MTA Chairman and CEO Thomas F. Prendergast. “Our last major joint railroad car procurement produced highly dependable trains that have helped improve our On Time Performance and are providing years of reliable and safe transportation. We anticipate that this latest update to our fleet will produce the same positive results.”

As with railroads’ previous electric car classes, the majority of cars under this contract will be manufactured as “married pairs” comprised of two nearly identical cars permanently coupled together and sharing a restroom, cabs for engineer or conductor, and electrical systems. Each pair is designed to seat 221 passengers, eight more than the M7 pairs.

The MTA benefited from robust competition for this contract. The MTA, with the LIRR acting as the lead agency, initially advertised a Request For Proposals (RFP) for the cars in June 2012. Twelve carbuilders received initial RFP packages from the MTA containing technical details of the cars. After initial consultations, the MTA determined that six of them were qualified to submit initial price and technical proposals, and three ultimately did so. Best and final offers from each of the responding carbuilders were received in August 2013.

The proposals for the contract were evaluated on a host of financial and technical criteria, including price, percentage of New York State content going into the cars, and the percentage of U.S. domestically produced steel used in the cars. The winning proposer, Kawasaki, provided the most attractive pricing.

The M3 cars being replaced by the M9 cars entered service between 1984 and 1986. Upon their retirement, they will have served the region for more than 30 years.

New York State | Executive Chamberhttp://www.governor.ny.gov| 518.474.8418

Head-end View wrote:Lirr42, are you implying that Dutch may be mistaken??????

You make it sound like that never happens... when in fact, it does happen occasionally.

Well, the rendering looks pretty much like what everyone expected it to look like (modified M7). I must admit though that I'm not a fan of the vertical marker/aux lights that Kawasaki did with the M8s. At least they will be easier to tell apart at first glance.

You mean the M9s won't look like the M8s?

BuddCar711 wrote:You mean the M9s won't look like the M8s?

They have to fit all of the size profiles of the M3's (since the entire railroad, particularly ESA, is constructed around those dimensions). If it were to copy the M8 design they would not be low enough to clear the Flatbush Avenue and 63rd Street Tunnels.

In one of the LIRR Board meeting minutes it was stated that the M9s designation was because of the financial arrangements. I quoted the minutes at the time in the ESA thread. It was stated the M9s would be purchased with funds (mostly federal I think) specifically earmarked for the ESA project and limited to being spent on ESA-related items. That the LIRR M9As were to be purchased with money from the MTA capital budget.

As for LIRR acting as the lead agency in procuring equipment this has already happened a number of times.

In the minutes of the LIRR Board Meeting held Monday -- just prior to the announcement Kawasaki would be the successful bidder -- there was a reference to the future purchase of unpowered M9s. The minutes are in pdf and can't be copied so I scanned the section and underlined the relevant part.



I don't know if they'll go through with this -- if you read these documents there's many things proposed that later turn out to be impractical or unwanted -- but the MTA has mentioned purchasing control trailers in the past.

Tommy Meehan wrote:In one of the LIRR Board meeting minutes it was stated that the M9s designation was because of the financial arrangements. I quoted the minutes at the time in the ESA thread. It was stated the M9s would be purchased with funds (mostly federal I think) specifically earmarked for the ESA project and limited to being spent on ESA-related items. That the LIRR M9As were to be purchased with money from the MTA capital budget.

I think this is more of the reason behind the M9 and M9A fiasco, except I think it was the other way around. The M9 cars are the general cars for LIRR and MNCR if they so desired. The committee notes specifically said that this base order of 92 M9's would be paid through the MTA's 2009-2014 capital program. I think the M9A cars are the ESA spending cars.