Quote:
Originally Posted by Busy Bee
I suppose the root of my frustration is with the FRA and the ill conceived crash worthiness reg's than with SMART who was forced to reinvent the wheel to get rolling stock that appeased the FRA. That money could have been put towards even better station facilities, electrification or operational budgets.
|
The FRA compliant Nippon Sharyo DMUs SMART ordered were much cheaper than all other offers, including other FRA compliant from other vendors and non-compliant DMUs from Stadler and Siemens.
The cars specifications call for seating of 78 passengers per car, storage for10 to 12 bicycles, overhead storage, permanent and folding tables, readinglights, Wi-Fi and a bathroom in one car and a snack bar in the other.
Here's the per unit prices the various vendors gave to provide nine specified three-car trains:
Sumitomo Corp. of America / Nippon Sharyo Inc. (FRA compliant) = $82.7 million
CAF USA Inc. of Spain (FRA compliant) = $136.7 million
Stadler Rail AG of Switzerland (Non-FRA compliant) = $124 million
U.S. Railcar of Columbus, Ohio = $131.5 million (FRA compliant).
German manufacturer Siemens submitted two proposals, $104.6 million (Non-FRA compliant) and $121.2 million (FRA compliant).
The Nippon Sharyo offer was 21% cheaper than the next cheapest DMU. SMART eventually saved even more money by ordering less than they listed in the proposal. Never-the-less, to suggest the non-FRA compliant trains would have been cheaper is completely false. Actually, by ordering these they have more money left over to spend on other goodies.
Data source:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATN/message/46578