Hey, there! Log in / Register

Big Dig all in the past, state says as it hires consulting firm to help buy new locomotives

The Globe reports the MBTA is hiring Parsons Brinckerhoff to help the state manage the purchase of 20 new locomotives for commuter rail.

Topics: 
Free tagging: 


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

We're hiring STV who is using PB and 2 other firms to subcontract parts of the evaluation in the purchase. According to the article, PB is only doing about 16% of the total work on this project. It's not overseeing it or anything like it did on the Big Dig.

Also, I don't really have too much of a problem with this as long as the stuff noted at the very end of the article is true: keep them on a short leash and slam them into the wall if they screw up again.

up
Voting closed 0

How about adding Paul Guzzi (Chambers of Commerce) and Bobby Haynes (AFL-CIO) as consultants as well, after the wounderful public service they've provided on the BCBS Board of Directors?

up
Voting closed 0

Yesterday, the MBTA agreed to hire Parsons Brinckerhoff as a subcontractor on an $8.7 million deal to help the state manage its $115 million purchase of 20 new commuter rail locomotives, to be built in Idaho.

I understand that buying trains is not like picking out a new car, but I don't understand exactly why there needs to be four contractors involved in the purchase.

The contract, to support the MBTA as it purchases new locomotives from Idaho’s MotivePower Inc., anticipates that STV will work with three subcontractors, including PB, which would handle 16 percent of the work.

Unclear to me if the $8.7 million to PB is on top of the $115 million or what, but what is entailed in doing this? Understandably you need someone with a clue to make sure these things are going to work with your existing system and that we're not using hair-nets on these things a few years down the road, but four contractors? By the time each middleman gets their cut what percentage of that $115 is left? Talk about crotch grabbing...

But remember the problem are those highly paid govt employees and their cadillac health plans.

up
Voting closed 0

I understand that buying trains is not like picking out a new car, but I don't understand exactly why there needs to be four contractors involved in the purchase.

Oh, John, doncha know that diesel locomotives are, like, new and untested technology. It's only been 70 years since we switched from steam. We have to proceed carefully, none of these manufacturers have a long track record.

up
Voting closed 0

that make passenger locomotives that meet US design and safety standards, which are considerably more stringent than those in Europe and other parts of the world. Even then, it's not like you can walk into a passenger locomotive showroom and select the model you want off the floor.

And, unfortunately, the requirements and restrictions of the public bidding process preclude the MBTA from using an established and proven design specification from a previous purchase (like the new P36s) "as-is". It's one of the down sides of both the low bid process and addressing the taxpayers' demands for accountable and transparent government that's fully open to the people.

All that having been said, I agree that hiring four consultants to do this design work is a bid much. The fact that the T feels the need to have three firms involved in "peer review" or oversight of another consultant's work speaks volumes about the T's lack of "in-house" design expertise.

up
Voting closed 0

If there are few to choose from, that makes the choice easier, doesn't it? I suppose GM Electromotive is still in the business, they've only been building diesels for 80 years. Who else, Bombardier?

up
Voting closed 0

Our design and safety standards are more stringent than the Europeans or the Japanese? That's weird. Is that common transportation-nerd knowledge or is there some source for that info? Just curious.

It's too bad that there aren't more transit manufacturers. Even worse that few (any?) are from the U.S. The Italians popped up a plant in Milwaukee (or thereabouts) in anticipation of High Speed Rail projects, but then cherished Governor put the kibosh on that project and the plant closed up. Maybe the G.E. in Lynn can switch from jet engines that the Pentagon doesn't want to light and heavy rail cars.

up
Voting closed 0

Rail cars WITH jet engines on them!

up
Voting closed 0

http://www.ebbc.org/rail/fra.html for a quick summary of the issues between European and US standards. And Japanese standards are even less stringent than the European ones.

As for GE, they have a very profitable locomotive division that I'm sure will submit a bid for constructing the T's new engines.

up
Voting closed 0

Interesting stuff (I mean, from a transportation geek point of view).

As long as we seem to be giving out tax breaks and incentives at the drop of a hat to any and all industries, wouldn't it make sense to perhaps see if GE would want to locate some of its locomotive activities in this area with the provision that they get a leg up on a lucrative in-state contract? (with provisions for meeting the needs of the contract and being no more than x% more than the low bid or something like that.) I don't understand why we go with low bidders (who then end up putting in change orders and gouging without repercussions) on contracts, but then hand out tax breaks and incentives to get businesses to move into the state. Why not make being in-state one of the criteria for being chosen for a contract (along with price, track record, etc.)? Or do we do this already? I'm not into contracts...we have people for that...and they all get paid way more than I do.

One thing about a blog with a lot of know-it-alls, you can learn a lot.

up
Voting closed 0

I wouldn't say that our requirements are more stringent, since that would imply that they accomplish a goal of making trains safer.

They're certainly more restrictive, and result in much heavier and more expensive trains, which take more fuel to operate and incur more wear and tear on the tracks. But requiring the external structure of trains to withstand more than a million pounds of end force without deforming is a good way to make all the seats and people pile up at one end during a crash.

The European standards, which emphasize energy dissipation through crumple zones, keeping trains from derailing, and preventing crashes in the first place, are much better at actually saving lives.

up
Voting closed 0

And yet, if the T had "in-house" design expertise, there would be a cry from the looney-bin Right that it's a waste of money to pay people on the MBTA staff to do this.

up
Voting closed 0

GE Rail, Electro-Motive Division of Caterpillar, Bombardier, Hyundai, Kawasaki and others are listed as locomotive makers.

I can't see how they are so complicated that this amount of money for a design evaluation is justified. How are these tenders publicized and are they going to a select group of firms?

up
Voting closed 0

The T originally planned to have a Spanish company build the locomotives, but then Idaho's congressional delegation (all three of them) jumped on the deal as un-American, and federal regulators agreed.

up
Voting closed 0

The next locomotibe order is going to have to meet much more stringent EPA emission standards and are going to be a lot different compared to new locomotives built this year or those built in the past.

http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/loco.php

The 20 new locomotives are also going to be much more powerful than the present fleet (4600 h.p. vs. 3000 and 3600 h.p.).

It is not unusal at all for transit agencies (nor just the MBTA) to hire consultants to help oversee the construction of new equipment and make sure that the builder is meeting the specifications of the contract. Consultants have people on staff who deal with such issues all the time, while transit agencies can sometimes go many years without having any large procurements underway.

up
Voting closed 0

Also note, that when the order was put out again, they got only two responses from the samt two builders (the one from Idaho and the one from Spain), only this time, Idaho won. The Spanish builder Vossloh had proposed to team up with the American builder EMD, which used to be a subsidiary of GM but is now owned by Caterpillar. The winning Idaho builder Motive Power Industries is now teaming up with General Electric, having formerly teamed up with EMD. GE and EMD are arch rivals in building freight locomtotives, and neither has shown much interest in recent years in building new passenger locomotives directly. They have preferred to team up with smaller builders for passenger locomotives.

up
Voting closed 0