MARTA Looks To Modernize Fleet With 250 New Rail Cars

[1lifealex]

MARTA Looks To Modernize Fleet With 250 New Rail Cars
By TASNIM SHAMMA • AUG 10, 2016

MARTA Chief Operating Officer Richard Krisak says $700 million in funding has been identified and approved for 250 new rail cars.

The Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority is now getting ready to replace up to 350 rail cars over the next decade. MARTA Chief Operating Officer Richard Krisak says $700 million in funding has been identified and approved for the 250 cars.

Some of MARTA’s 318 train cars date back to 1979, when the transit system began rail service. Krisak said the lifespan of most train cars is a maximum of 40 years, and newer cars would be safer and easier to maintain.

“Nowadays, a train is basically like a moving computer,” Krisak said. “That ability reduces maintenance, reduces downtime because we can troubleshoot the vehicle by Wi-Fi technology we’re deploying now.”

He said riders are also demanding more Internet connectivity on trains, so he expects the new fleet may include more charging stations, live graphic displays and maps that show where the train is and its next stop.

Krisak said MARTA will seek public input with focus groups including both daily riders and casual MARTA rail passengers to help decide the seating, interior layout and colors of the new trains.

Trains with service to the airport will be expected to accommodate more luggage. Krisak said he’s also looking for more space for wheelchairs and bicycles on the trains as well as easier access and features for mobility-impaired and hearing-impaired riders.

Krisak said rail cars are no longer manufactured by companies in the United States and all 10 major international rail car manufacturers have shown interest in bidding for a contract this year.

"We're really happy we can provide an improved product for the public," Krisak said. "It is really the most identifiable item in our system. It really provides the identity. So this is a major procurement for us and we want to make sure we pick a really good firm to partner with and that our customers are involved in the process."

He expects a request for proposals will be issued in October and due early next year. The first pilot rail car is expected to be on the tracks by 2019. Full-scale production of the 250 cars would begin in 2020. The contract would include an option to purchase an additional 100 train cars.

[1lifealex]

http://news.wabe.org/post/marta-look...-new-rail-cars

[Busy Bee]

Krisak said rail cars are no longer manufactured by companies in the United States and all 10 major international rail car manufacturers have shown interest in bidding for a contract this year.

This is an abysmally constructed and poorly researched sentence. There may be a lack of American companies building railcars, but essentially every foreign railcar manufacturer has a US "division" with US manufacturing capabilities to meet Buy America requirements. The new MARTA cars will be, by law, manufactured in the US. This article makes it sound otherwise.

[atlantaguy]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

This is an abysmally constructed and poorly researched sentence. There may be a lack of American companies building railcars, but essentially every foreign railcar manufacturer has a US "division" with US manufacturing capabilities to meet Buy America requirements. The new MARTA cars will be, by law, manufactured in the US. This article makes it sound otherwise.

Yeah, this is extremely sloppy. Especially considering Siemens has an LRT final assembly plant here!

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

This is an abysmally constructed and poorly researched sentence. There may be a lack of American companies building railcars, but essentially every foreign railcar manufacturer has a US "division" with US manufacturing capabilities to meet Buy America requirements. The new MARTA cars will be, by law, manufactured in the US. This article makes it sound otherwise.

If they finance the new MARTA cars with the own money or money from a private party, they don't need to purchase cars made in America. Buy America only applies to equipment bought with Federal funding.

Here's a what if that might be how they have found financing - a third party, for example a bank or a leasing company, buys the new cars then leases them to MARTA with a long term lease. MARTA is contracting with the leasing company to use the cars. No federal or state funds are being used to buy them, so Buy America doesn't apply.

[llamaorama]

How does it work if a bank buys a city's transit vehicles and leases them back? Won't heavy rail rapid transit vehicle assets be worthless to the bank if the city skips out on them? Buses would work, since there's a larger market for buses and bus parts. Even to a much smaller extent some light rail trains like the Siemens S- family which by my count are used in at least 8 US cities. But except maybe Washington DC, are there any rail systems built to similar specs as MARTA in the US?

[electricron]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

How does it work if a bank buys a city's transit vehicles and leases them back? Won't heavy rail rapid transit vehicle assets be worthless to the bank if the city skips out on them? Buses would work, since there's a larger market for buses and bus parts. Even to a much smaller extent some light rail trains like the Siemens S- family which by my count are used in at least 8 US cities. But except maybe Washington DC, are there any rail systems built to similar specs as MARTA in the US?

If the transit agency doesn't pay their lease payments when due, the bank could repossive them and the transit agency wouldn't have any vehicles.
Amtrak leases the Acela train sets. If Amtrak didn't make their payments on time, they may not be able to run them. Of course, that's after several missed payments. More likely there would be a penalty as stated in the contract for a late payment.

I believe the modern heavy metro rail systems in D.C. and Miami may use the vehicles MARTA uses. BART in SF uses a different rail gauge and can not. I used the word may because there are many other characteristics besides gauge that may make them incompatible.

[Busy Bee]

I think LA Metro would be in the same length and loading gauge category, and although paltry, Baltimore as well.

[cabasse]

one particularly cool bit of related news, is that they want to include a provision for a pantograph http://www.railjournal.com/index.php...ml?channel=000

assuming this would be for the clifton corridor, running from lindbergh to emory/CDC, on the ballot Nov 8th. http://www.councilforqualitygrowth.o...oject-List.pdf

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by cabasse

one particularly cool bit of related news, is that they want to include a provision for a pantograph http://www.railjournal.com/index.php...ml?channel=000

assuming this would be for the clifton corridor, running from lindbergh to emory/CDC, on the ballot Nov 8th. http://www.councilforqualitygrowth.o...oject-List.pdf

Interesting. That would make MARTA sort of a heavy rail/light rail hybrid akin to the Chicago L.

Unfortunately the long railcar length used by MARTA currently doesn't jive with the tight curves and zigzag alignment of the Clifton Corridor, so they would have to shorten the car length (again, like the Chicago L) if they want the railcars to be interoperable.

Chicago actually ran overhead power on the Skokie Swift for years with a retractable pantograph. Ultimately they decided it was too much trouble to maintain two different power collection systems, so they installed third rail at-grade along the Yellow Line. Apparently the safety concerns were unwarranted... people are not electrocuting themselves along the line's route.

[llamaorama]

Why use third rail vs. overhead wire anyways?

Is third rail cheaper? Assume small diameter tunnels can be outfitted with rigid contact bars like some Spanish metros so that's not a concern either way.

[Kngkyle]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

Why use third rail vs. overhead wire anyways?

Is third rail cheaper? Assume small diameter tunnels can be outfitted with rigid contact bars like some Spanish metros so that's not a concern either way.

I think it's pretty clear that third rail is cheaper to build and maintain. Just think about how much less infrastructure is needed. Chicago does have at-grade crossings with third rail and it doesn't seem to be a problem.

[eleven=11]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

This is an abysmally constructed and poorly researched sentence. There may be a lack of American companies building railcars, but essentially every foreign railcar manufacturer has a US "division" with US manufacturing capabilities to meet Buy America requirements. The new MARTA cars will be, by law, manufactured in the US. This article makes it sound otherwise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metror...lacement_fleet
136 new trains built in miami florida
was italian company know japanese.

[1lifealex]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

This is an abysmally constructed and poorly researched sentence. There may be a lack of American companies building railcars, but essentially every foreign railcar manufacturer has a US "division" with US manufacturing capabilities to meet Buy America requirements. The new MARTA cars will be, by law, manufactured in the US. This article makes it sound otherwise.

I'm pretty sure that Marta knows this

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by 1lifealex

I'm pretty sure that Marta knows this

The news story was produced for the general public, not Marta brass.

[1lifealex]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

The news story was produced for the general public, not Marta brass.

Lol you got A point but anyway turns out Marta will not be using federal funds

[1lifealex]

To reduce the cost of new vehicles, MARTA is not enforcing the federal Buy America Requirements regarding steel, iron, and manufactured parts. MARTA can do that because it doesn’t intend to use federal funding to purchase the cars, according to the solicitation. That said, the solicitation observes:

[llamaorama]

Originally Posted by Kngkyle

I think it's pretty clear that third rail is cheaper to build and maintain. Just think about how much less infrastructure is needed. Chicago does have at-grade crossings with third rail and it doesn't seem to be a problem.

I'm not an engineer or know much about how electrical things work beyond what I remember from high school science class, but high voltage and low voltages and AC and DC power have their different pros and cons. I was thinking along the lines of how many substations would be needed, how much energy is wasted from resistance, and how much overall power could be delivered to run more than one train going up hills or accelerating on a line segment.

Not needing catenary would seem to be cheaper but part me of thinks that sticking a bunch of mass produced metal poles in the ground can't really be that expensive. Also if you have a third rail, doesn't snow and water drainage and trash and weeds become issues? Doesn't the third rail need its own concrete pad or footings? Isn't the third rail and its safety cover heavier gauge metal than overhead cables? Overhead cables can always be tightened, but if a third rail gets misaligned will it tear up the train's contact shoes or start a fire?

Finally, while it might be sort of safe to have a grade crossing with a gap on a third rail powered system, most of the alignment seems to be in alleys or otherwise secluded spaces. I can't imagine a third rail powered train running in the median of a road however.

[bobdreamz]