Rotem Cars Discussion (new bi-level cars)

RailBus63 wrote:Instead of modifying cars with one more low-level door - which is an inherently inefficient design - why not push for the construction of high-level platforms at the busiest stations?

Good idea. Will the new cars have ghetto bars?

GEL wrote:

RailBus63 wrote:Instead of modifying cars with one more low-level door - which is an inherently inefficient design - why not push for the construction of high-level platforms at the busiest stations?

Good idea. Will the new cars have ghetto bars?

On the control cars, most likely yes

While I know Rotem was already awarded the contract and that isn't going to change unfortunately, I think the best designs for the MBTA, given the hi/low platform mix, would be current designs from Kawasaki and Bombardier.

For quicker boarding/unloading MBTA should choose the NJT Bombardier Comet VI cars. For max passenger capacity MBTA should choose the MARC III Kawasaki bi-levels (itself a thorough update of the MBTA K-car design). Either way both designs would be way better than any nonsense Rotem would put out.

realtype wrote:While I know Rotem was already awarded the contract and that isn't going to change unfortunately, I think the best designs for the MBTA, given the hi/low platform mix, would be current designs from Kawasaki and Bombardier.

For quicker boarding/unloading MBTA should choose the NJT Bombardier Comet VI cars. For max passenger capacity MBTA should choose the MARC III Kawasaki bi-levels (itself a thorough update of the MBTA K-car design). Either way both designs would be way better than any nonsense Rotem would put out.

Manufacturer is independent of design. The design is controlled by the buyer, who specifies the features in a lengthy document called a request-for-proposals (RFP). The MBTA put out specifications, and all bidders would have had to propose the same thing. But because this was a competitive procurement, the MBTA also had the opportunity to negotiate with each bidder before making an award. Whatever Rotem delivers is what the MBTA asked for, and agreed to.

"Manufacturer is independent of design. The design is controlled by the buyer, who specifies the features in a lengthy document called a request-for-proposals (RFP). The MBTA put out specifications, and all bidders would have had to propose the same thing. But because this was a competitive procurement, the MBTA also had the opportunity to negotiate with each bidder before making an award. Whatever Rotem delivers is what the MBTA asked for, and agreed to."

Thanks... you beat me to the punch. To classify anything Rotem puts out as "nonsense" is, in effect, criticizing the buyer and not the manufacturer. You may not like what Rotem builds, or Rotem specifically, but the "nonsense" referred to is what the particular buyer specified..... right down to how it looks. Want proof? Take a look at the WMATA's Metro fleet from 1976 to present. The cars were built by Rohr, Breda, CAFS and Alstom, yet, apart from minor spotting differences are practically identical. Why? Because WMATA specified the design, NOT Rohr, Breda, CAFS or Alstom.

While each manufacturer may have small "signature" features, overall, the blame for the design belongs to the agency that ordered it, drew up specifications, prepared the RFP and RFQ and approved the designs and bids. Plenty of manufacturers have built cars that some would consider "nonsense", stupid, ugly, etc., NOT just Rotem, so let the blame lie where it belongs, and give this predjudice against any particular manufacturer a rest based on appearance. How it looks? Blame the MBTA, MNCRR, LIRR, SEPTA...... etc. How it performs? How it holds up? How it was built? Blame the builder.

fl9m2026 wrote:You may not like what Rotem builds, or Rotem specifically, but the "nonsense" referred to is what the particular buyer specified..... right down to how it looks. Want proof? Take a look at the WMATA's Metro fleet from 1976 to present. The cars were built by Rohr, Breda, CAFS and Alstom, yet, apart from minor spotting differences are practically identical. Why? Because WMATA specified the design, NOT Rohr, Breda, CAFS or Alstom.

Another example is UTDC building the 01700's to look much like the 01500/01600's, even though there are actually numerous differences (steel construction instead of aluminum, etc.).

Thanks for further demonstrating the point, Railbus! Good example, too.... MUCH more local than mine! There are instances of "off-the-shelf" technology being used (with minor regional and agency-mandated differences) such as Bombardier's Comet single-level coaches (based upon Pullman-Standard's original design). In most cases though, unless the "off-the-shelf" variant meets the exact need, then a new, specific design is predicated. Therefore, MBTA may not want or could not utilize a design like NJT's Comet VI's, or MetroLinks Bombadier "lozenge lounges". If they want it to look the same, they are responsible. And seeing how Rotem's concept drawing of the new SEPTA cars looks pretty damn close to the real thing, you can probably expect that their concept drawing of the MBTA multi-level will be pretty much "what you see is what you get" - unless the "T" submits change-orders. 'Nuff said.

So who at the MBTA is in charge of drawing up the plans for new coaches? Is there a design team of engineers, or at least a consulting engineer or something? I don't mean a loco engineer, I mean someone who designs plans for building stuff.... Don't laugh, I really don't know the answer to this

concordgirl wrote:So who at the MBTA is in charge of drawing up the plans for new coaches? Is there a design team of engineers, or at least a consulting engineer or something? I don't mean a loco engineer, I mean someone who designs plans for building stuff.... Don't laugh, I really don't know the answer to this

The T has a department called "Rail Vehicle Engineering". That is what they do. Also, they have hired, and will hire, consulting engineers.

DAW

130MM wrote: The T has a department called "Rail Vehicle Engineering". That is what they do. Also, they have hired, and will hire, consulting engineers.

DAW

That's really interesting, thank you I looked it up and found a current job posting for one of those positions on the MBTA website, it told more about what type of qualifications the person needs to have, what type of engineer, etc.

fl9m2026 wrote:Thanks for further demonstrating the point, Railbus! Good example, too.... MUCH more local than mine! There are instances of "off-the-shelf" technology being used (with minor regional and agency-mandated differences) such as Bombardier's Comet single-level coaches (based upon Pullman-Standard's original design). In most cases though, unless the "off-the-shelf" variant meets the exact need, then a new, specific design is predicated. Therefore, MBTA may not want or could not utilize a design like NJT's Comet VI's, or MetroLinks Bombadier "lozenge lounges". If they want it to look the same, they are responsible. And seeing how Rotem's concept drawing of the new SEPTA cars looks pretty damn close to the real thing, you can probably expect that their concept drawing of the MBTA multi-level will be pretty much "what you see is what you get" - unless the "T" submits change-orders. 'Nuff said.

Another good example are the PCC's, who's construction was shared by Pullman-Standard and St. Louis Car Company. With minor differences between them, the same basic car ran nation-wide.

Some weeks ago I read a news clip that said Rotem's delivery to Septa (??) was getting pushed out several months due to a steel shortage - the steel being committed to war efforts abroad.

If so, wouldn't the orders to the MBTA similarly slip?

I don't want this to go off topic, but Rotem has finished the mock up for SEPTA's cars.

http://www.trainweb.org/phillynrhs/RPOTW080727.html

sery2831 wrote:I don't want this to go off topic, but Rotem has finished the mock up for SEPTA's cars.

http://www.trainweb.org/phillynrhs/RPOTW080727.html

those cars look pretty good. Hopefully some pictures of them in service will show up soon. I'm still disappointed that Kawasaki was not chosen, but we'll have to wait and see what Rotem brings us and stay positive

MBTA F40PH-2C 1050 wrote: ...see what Rotem brings us and stay positive

Tell that to NJT with their Alstom (which is a MUCH better manufacturer than Rotem) PL42AC's and Comet V's.