This week, Metro-North is seeking MTA Board approval to award a $335 million contract to Siemens Mobility for the design and manufacture of 27 new dual mode locomotives, the first in a new line of engines on a contract that includes options for up to 144 additional locomotives. This is the culmination of a procurement started all the way back in the summer of 2018 and one that has encountered some significant delays during the process. The MTA Board will be asked to vote on the proposed contract at its virtual December meeting this Wednesday.
If the MTA Board approves the contract, the first pilot locomotive would be delivered about 50 months after award, which would not be until early 2025! The remainder of the locomotives would be delivered at the rate of about one per month until the base order is complete in mid-2026 (with the options being delivered through early 2027).
Metro-North has been taking the lead on this procurement, and is advancing this purchase for only the first 27 locomotives using grants made available by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Because these types of grants are typically 'use it or lose it' with a certain expiration date, the MTA has been advancing award of certain projects even though award of new contracts through its capital program remains largely on hold indefinitely due to the financial impacts to the MTA from the COVID-19 pandemic. These first 27 locomotives will replace one-for-one Metro-North's existing fleet of P32AC-DM Genesis locomotives, which were built back in the 1990's.
However, this first award is just the first step in what could be a long line of new dual modes. If approved by the MTA Board, the contract would include 19 base order locomotives with options for up to 152 additional locomotives, including:
- up to 8 additional locomotives for Metro-North (being exercised now)
- up to 32 additional locomotives for Metro-North
- up to 66 locomotives for the LIRR
- up to 20 locomotives for the Connecticut Department of Transportation
- up to 26 locomotives for the NYS Department of Transportation
This represents today's full market for third-rail dual mode locomotives (ConnDOT locomotives would be purchased for use on the New Haven Line branches, and the NYS DOT is now responsible for financing new equipment purchases for state-supported Amtrak services in New York).
It's important to note that these options only preserve the ability for these agencies to purchase a certain number of locomotives at an already fixed price at a later date—it is not guarantee nor does it create an obligation for them to do so. So this means that while these four agencies could band together and replace the current dual modes with a single new design, one or more of the agencies can break away and do their own thing.
A DE and DM replacement in sight?
For the LIRR, this is an very interesting development. Exercising the option on a Metro-North contract presents the cleanest and easiest path for replacing the current aging and problem-ridden DE and DM fleet. But this is far from a sure thing—the railroad must make every effort to not repeat the same mistakes it did in the 1990's when it found itself in pretty much the same situation with the option to join the established Genesis procurement with Metro-North, ConnDOT, Amtrak, and VIA Rail Canada. Last time, the LIRR misled the public and conjured up reasons to break away from the pack and go forward with an orphan procurement, selecting EMD to build the current feet of DM30AC locomotives—and we are still dealing with the consequences of that move to this day.
While I'm not saying jumping onto Metro-North's dual mode design should be the one and only course the LIRR considers, any contemplation or decision to go with an orphan procurement must be viewed with great skepticism. The LIRR must be expected to make—openly and transparently—an overwhelming case for why going a different route would better for Long Island riders, if that's the path they ultimately seek. These questionable locomotive procurement practices of the 1990's are not just an old fad—the railroad has been engaging in practices tantamount to bid rigging as recently as just a few years ago on a 2018 procurement for work locomotives.
Ultimately, LIRR officials have publicly said very little when it comes to their plans for replacing the DE and DM fleet. While hopefully they will say at least something substantive this week, it will likely be a while longer before we get any sort of clarity. The MTA and LIRR included funding for 12 new dual mode locomotives in the 2020-2024 Capital Program, which is now on hold indefinitely. But the fact that the original program only funded 12 locomotives and not a full replacement/expansion of the existing DE and DM fleet shows that the railroad likely was not contemplating a full DE/DM replacement until well beyond 2025—and that was before the COVID-19 pandemic threw an enormous wrench in the MTA's financial situation.
Siemens Charger DM
Much like the P32AC-DM was a direct successor of the P40DC/P42DC locomotives mass produced for Amtrak's use nationwide, Metro-North's new dual mode (if awarded) would also be a direct successor to the ongoing Siemens Charger program, which has been in production since 2016. These straight diesel locomotives are currently in operation or on order for a collection of state DOT's (IDOT, Caltrans, MDOT, MoDOT, WSDOT) for use on state-supported Amtrak corridors; for ACE, COASTER, and MARC for commuter service; for Brightline's higher-speed service in Florida; for Amtrak's National Network long distance trains; and for VIA Rail Canada. Currently upwards of 200 of these locomotives are in service, in production, or on order.
 |
| Two Caltrans Charger locomotives (left and right) at San Deigo's Santa Fe Depot, with an outgoing Genesis locomotive in the center. Metro-North's new dual mode will be a variant of these. (Photo: The LIRR Today) |
As part of the RFP process, Siemens did not bid the base specifications, instead their proposal included only an alternative design "based on [Siemens'] standard Charger locomotive platform already in operation and customized to meet what [Siemens] believed to be Metro-North's crucial technical requirements". Metro-North spent 18 months negotiating with Siemens and reviewing the alternative design to come up with the ultimate specifications and the contract terms for the order.
The staff summary prepared for the MTA Board does not detail the technical specifications of the selected locomotives, but it's reasonable to assume that they would not be too different from the capabilities of the current Genesis DM's, the Siemens Chargers, or what was in the original RFP (which called for a locomotive that could push or pull up to 8 multilevel coaches at speeds of up to 90 mi/hr, and for the locomotives to be able to operate in electric mode whenever possible).
Included in the original phase 1 RFP were several design options that could be included as part of the final contract, including:
- A diesel and DC third rail dual mode with a top speed of 110 mi/hr or 125 mi/hr (instead of 90 mi/hr)
- A diesel and AC overhead wire locomotive with a top speed of 110 mi/hr or 125 mi/hr (similar to NJTransit's ALP-45DP locomotives)
- A DC third rail and AC overhead wire motor (no diesel) that can run on 25 c/s 12.5 kV, 60 c/s 12.5 kV, and 60 c/s 25kV overhead wire
The staff summary again does not detail the specifics of what the options would be, only that the locomotives for the LIRR, ConnDOT, and NYS DOT would be "in an alternate configuration". The alterations for LIRR could be as simple as installing different cab signaling equipment or something more substantial (though at this point, it seems like it would be wise to make the Metro-North and LIRR locomotives completely interoperable—including provisioning for both cab signal systems—that way they can be traded back and forth effortlessly to better accommodate seasonal demand, special events, unforeseen issues, etc.)
NYS DOT would likely be taking advantage of the first design option for a higher-speed locomotive, as the upper portions of the Empire Corridor to Albany can currently support train speeds of up to 110 mi/hr. The other two options are unlikely to be used in this contract.
The diesel/AC overhead wire design option was likely included as a placeholder or feeler for Amtrak in case they wanted to convert off-corridor NEC trains to all dual mode. Presently, Springfield and Virginia Northeast Regional trains, the Carolinian, the Pennsylvanian, and the Vermonter operate with an electric locomotive on the NEC mainline and have that swapped for a diesel at either Washington, Philadelphia, or New Haven. This takes time, requires effort, and inconveniences passengers when these swaps are made, and converting some or all of these trains to dual mode would allow these trains to switch into diesel mode and operate off the electrified NEC with just a press of a button, saving up to 30 minutes or more for through passengers. This contract does not advance that effort, though given that all of the northeast state DOT's (VDOT, PennDOT, NCDOT, VTrans, MassDOT, and the NNEPRA) have not yet advanced plans for Genesis replacements, this door is still open. Though there is still potentially an opening for this type of locomotive for regional/commuter rail purposes (see below). All of the National Network long-distance trains that operate onto the NEC also do locomotive changes, though the idea of sending more expensive dual mode locomotives all the way to New Orleans, Chicago, or Miami for the sake of a 20 minute engine change at Washington doesn't seem like a great value proposition. Both Amtrak and Vermont's Agency of Transportation are technically responsible for a tiny portion of the dual mode replacement program (for their Lake Shore Limited and Ethan Allen Express trains, respectively) though these are probably being taken care of as part of some horse trade with the NYS DOT, as going through all of the effort involved with purchasing one or two locomotives is a little too much. Neither entity are directly involved in this contract.
The third design option for a dual motor was likely included by Metro-North in a similar vein as a placeholder/feeler. Metro-North has reportedly been contemplating replacing its M-3A fleet with sets of bi-level coaches bracketed by electric locomotives, and a dual motor working on third rail and overhead wire would allow these trains to be operated anywhere in electrified territory (and beyond, even to the older AC overhead wire in use on the lower portion of the NEC). Back in September, Metro-North issued an requests for expressions of interest for bi-level cars, giving credence to the idea that this plan was still at least on the table...though this contract does not appear to include these options at the moment.
Siemens may already be on their way to cracking the dual mode design challenge before the contract even gets out of the box. The straight diesel Charger locomotives are based on the Siemens Vectron locomotives used widely throughout in Europe (the Charger is effectively the American version of the Vectron). Late last year, Siemens completed their first dual mode Vectron, and they secured safety approvals from German authorities to operate the train in service just last month. If the contract is approved, the new dual mode for Metro-North would likely be a marrying of the existing Charger and Vectron DM designs.
 |
| The major components of the Siemens Vectron DM operating in Germany (Rendering: Siemens) |
Strength in numbers
For the time being, all that is being moved forward for MTA Board approval this week is a one-for-one replacement of the Genesis P32AC-DM locomotives that Metro-North currently owns. However, if all of the options are fully exercised, it could represent an opportunity for a significant increase in dual mode services across the region. Currently Metro-North, ConnDOT, the LIRR, and Amtrak have a total of 70 dual modes on their rosters. Fully exercising the options would bring that to 171 locomotives, an increase of 101 dual modes:
| Railroad | Current DM's | New DM's | Additional options | Possible expansion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Metro-North | 27 | 27 | 32 | +32 (+119%) |
| ConnDOT | 4 | 0 | 20 | +16 (+400%) |
| LIRR | 21 | 0 | 66 | +45 (+214%) |
| Amtrak (now NYS DOT) | 18 | 0 | 26 | +8 (+44%) |
The additional Metro-North options are true wildcards—they could be more third rail dual modes for expanding service on the upper Hudson and Harlem Lines. Or it could be those dual motors for the M-3A replacements...replacing 138 M-3A's with bi-levels in 8 car trains would require about 14 trains and 28 locomotives, so that is plausible (though it would be a very tight shop margin). The MTA also said previously they were considering purchasing 15 diesel Charger locomotives to replace the hodgepodge of old units in service on the West of Hudson lines, though purchasing dual modes for lines that are >98% unelectrified seems like an odd choice, given how Gateway and the proposed Bergen Loop remain at the very edge of the radar...though anything is possible.
 |
| ConnDOT's four dual modes are used in pool service with MNR (Photo: Darienredsox) |
 |
| A LIRR DM arriving at Southampton (The LIRR Today) |
| Scenario | DM Loco | DE Loco | Total Loco | T/TT Cars | Cab Cars |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Status quo | 28 | 32 | 60 | 196 | 34 |
| Modernizing service patterns (<25 min peak, <60 min o-pk) —No electrification —PJN electrification —PJN + PGE electrification —PJN + PGE + OBY electrification | 38 20 18 18 | 51 39 32 18 | 89 59 50 36 | 274 167 134 107 | 39 30 23 13 |
| Full electrification | 24 | 0 | 24 | 108 | 0 |
The largest variable is, of course, expansions in electrification. If the LIRR expands electrification, then dual modes are of course less important. There's significant support for expanding electrification on Long Island, and the benefits of EMU's over push-pull diesel trains are clear and obvious. When it comes to truly modernizing the LIRR, there's probably no better bang for the capital bucks than expanding electrification.
NYS DOT's 26 option locomotives also represent a nice expansion in fleet size. It's actually likely the perfect amount—in the example Empire Service improvements I wrote about over the summer, I figured that hourly service between Albany and Ronkonkoma, two additional round-trips west of Albany, and three additional round-trips on the Ethan Allen Express north of Albany would require a total of 25 locomotives. Add one or two for the Lake Shore Limited gives a total of 26 or 27 locomotives with spares—right in the sweetspot. This does not necessarily mean that the state is gearing up for such a big boost in Empire Corridor service, but it is very encouraging.
An uncompetitive procurement
The fact that all of these potential new locomotives are included as future options and are not being advanced now as part of a base order gives the railroads more time to consider their future fleet needs—but this indecision is not without consequence, and it may end up costing us all more in the long run.
The MTA's rolling stock procurements are often extreemly expensive, and markedly more than what is seen elsewhere in the world. Part of this is definitely due to the unique and borderline byzantine specifications it imposes, which means pretty much everything has to be custom built for the MTA. This is definitely true for the subways, and the FRA's old crashworthiness regulations required US rail equipment to be built to completely different standards than off-the-shelf European or Asian train designs (these regulations have since been amended to allow for trains built to Euronorms to be used in the US with only light modifications). The US railcar market has become increasingly oligopic over the years, as there are only a handful of manufacturers that have the ability to set up facilities and develop a whole fleet design basically from scratch each time for a one-time order. Cross-agency cooperation where you have giant orders like we saw with the Genesis or are seeing with the Chargers are literally a once every two or three decades thing. That requires a lot of production capacity in a short period of time, with the risk for lots of down time between contracts. Oh, and most of the time those factories have to be in the United States and they can't use existing factories in Europe or Asia.
You can count all of the major players in the US rail equipment industry on one hand (and with the recent merger of Alstom and Bombardier, there is now one less). Less competition means higher prices, as companies can be more comfortable packing larger margins into their numbers. Doing any sort of business with the MTA almost always includes an additional "MTA premium", too. The MTA has consistently struggled to maximize competition, especially when it comes to fleet procurements.
 |
| An MPXpress locomotive on New Mexico's Rail Runner (Photo: VonTasha) |
But when it came time to submit the final proposals, only one bid was received (from Siemens). Both Bombardier and MPI ultimately declined to bid, indicating a lack of interest in the procurement due to the small base quantity of locomotives requested, the inability to provide a competitive price, and the inability to comply with Federal requirements. Here is where the railroads' indecision is likely going to cost us all big in the long run... Because equipment procurements have significant fixed costs for the design and testing of the equipment, small orders are incredibly expensive, as those fixed costs can't be spread over as many units. This is exacerbated by the fact that Siemens already had a working diesel locomotive model that met all of the requirements—their fixed costs were already going to be significantly lower, as all they needed to do was tweak their existing design, not start from scratch. Had the agencies come to the table with a coordinated plan and committed to the full order upfront, Bombardier and MPI may have had a better chance at being competitive, helping keep everyone's prices lower.
Having only a single bidder is never considered a good practice in any contracting effort, and especially when the public's money is involved. Without the nuisance of competition, the sole supplier effectively gets a free pass to run up the price...and this is especially true in this case once the MTA let the tables to be turned on itself, leaving it to negotiate with a vendor on a proposed alternative design, instead of the other way around as it typically should. Every little request or modification from MNR presented an opportunity for the sole supplier to pump up the price and pad their margins, at our expense.
Sticker shock
These new locomotives are, naturally, really expensive. The initial 19 base order locomotives are priced at $12.2 million each, and the first 8 option locomotives are priced at $10.3 million each. The staff summary being presented to the MTA Board does not give the pricing for the remaining contract options...but if they are at a similar price, this is likely close to a $2 billion contract overall.
At an average price of $11.6 million per locomotive, the new dual modes would be priced well in excess of what we have seen before. LIRR's original 23 DM locomotives cost $3.9 million each in 1995...adjusting that for inflation, they would cost $6.7 million in today's dollars (a 73% price premium). The new dual modes are comparable in price to NJT's ALP-45DP's (26 locomotives for €6.85 million each in 2008...$11.9 million each adjusted for currency and inflation effects), though those were truly a brand new design in the US market, and were for a much smaller order than this (so it had an incredibly high fixed cost split over a much smaller number of units).
 |
| The Siemens Vectron DM is the future Charger DM's European cousin, but it costs one-quarter the price (Siemens) |
Even the premium for a dual mode locomotive over a straight diesel is increasing. A regular diesel Charger locomotive costs about $7.0 million each, meaning that a dual mode Charger would cost a whopping 65% more than the diesel only version... This is a much wider premium than what we saw with the DE and DM locomotives in the 1990's—back then, the LIRR paid about 43% more per locomotive for the dual mode functionality.
A major milestone
If the Siemens contract is approved by the MTA Board this week, it will be the first major step in an effort to replace the region's fleet of aging dual mode locomotives that will likely take most of this decade to see through. While the Siemens Charger design is not without its flaws, early indications have been generally positive regarding its performance...and hopefully that will carry through to this new dual mode variant. We have seen for most of the last decade the pain and suffering that poor diesel fleet reliability and limited capacity can inflict on passengers, and it's important to not repeat the same mistakes of prior fleet planning fumbles.
At least initially, the agencies don't seem to be setting themselves up to be short on locomotives by planning for a generous increase in the size of their dual mode fleets. But the very high cost is a major issue, and that may end up requiring agencies to cut corners and drop locomotives as funding is liable to become even scarcer in the coming years.
No comments:
Post a Comment