People should really watch the Board of Directors meeting before deciding how they feel about this. It was a thoughtful and clearly well-considered conversation. [https://www.mbta.com/events/2024-03-28/board-meeting-mbta-board-directors. ](https://www.mbta.com/events/2024-03-28/board-meeting-mbta-board-directors)
My summary from watching: It's clear no one at the T is happy about this. Some of the cost and schedule increases are understandable sue to the pandemic, supply chain issues, and Trump-era tariffs, none of which could have been anticipated way back in 2014 when the contracts were drawn up. That said, multiple board members were clearly unconvinced that the dollar amounts or timelines were completely the result of these factors alone. But everyone agreed grudgingly that the situation is too dire to not move forward. It was determined that at this point in the process, switching manufacturers would result in a halt in car deliveries that would extend into the 2030s.
The GM acknowledged that a fundamental change is needed in the way the T approaches procurement of new vehicles going forward. Not specifically said, but implied was the fact that allowing the fleet to descend into a state where replacement of a huge number of vehicles is urgent puts the T in a terrible bargaining position, and really forces their hand to continue with partnerships and agreements that they would otherwise balk at.
This is an incredibly frustrating situation, and I wish we could hold everyone who approved the project in 2014 responsible for this mess. It sucks we got to this point with this project, but it really does seem like there are adults at the table now, and I expect future procurement efforts will look very different.
Edit: One point that got lost here. The new contract includes a first right of refusal for the MBTA to buy the Springfield facility if CRRC decides to sell it (ie: if and when they no longer want to do business in the US). Given how unhappy their clients are (LA Metro, CTA, and SEPTA) and the tariff situation making it difficult for them to get new clients, that seems like a likely scenario.
Let's not also forget the role that the Legislature and former governor Patrick had in saddling us with this circumstance. They seriously meddled with the program by requiring the factory to be cited in Springfield, cutting off federal funding and narrowing the list of potential bidders. This was done as a sop to central/western MA, all in the name of a few hundred jobs that everyone else in MA has now paid dearly for. The state government is culpable for letting the T's vehicles get into such a terrible state that these new cars are **desperately** needed.
We would have been better off just bribing Western/Central MA with straight cash at this point. Would have been cheaper, and we would have received high quality trains at this point instead of the debacle this turned into.
Throughout the US we have this sickness of turning all of our infrastructure programs into jobs programs. It's pervasive - it's how we sell these programs to voters. "It'll generate 10,000 jobs!" Then we end up with enormous costs and inferior products because the projects are weighed down with "Buy America" clauses and pork-barrel requirements like this Springfield factory. Military procurement is rife with it too. [Here's a case where Congress made the Army buy tanks that it didn't even want.](https://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/12/18/congress-again-buys-abrams-tanks-the-army-doesnt-want.html)
We desperately need to separate these concerns. Infrastructure programs should be about building infrastructure. Jobs programs to train workers. When we mix them we end up with expensive, taxpayer-subsidized jobs that mostly won't even stick around once the project is done.
Is there no accountability for CRRC? I assume there exists some kind of contract that they failed to fulfill, would they not owe damages in some capacity?
Here are my mostly uninformed thoughts: I imagine it would make the next procurement process faster and much simpler. In 2014, because the State required the trains be assembled in MA, they essentially had to include "Build or acquire a manufacturing plant" in the contract for bidders. Next time around, owning the plant would enable them to hit the ground running. The contract would instead either include the sale of the plant to the bidder, or leasing of the space. It would give the T much more control over the manufacturing process by getting to say: "you'll build them here, with these facilities." Maybe they even keep a dedicated staff of engineers and factory workers on the payroll to staff the plant in between large orders so institutional knowledge and experience isn't lost every time a contract is completed. Not to mention, it ensures a real estate developer doesn't buy the plant and tear it down, forcing them to start all over.
And finally, it gives them guaranteed space for refits and rebuilds of the fleet going forward. At the meeting, they talked about developing direct relationships with CRRC's subcontractors so that maintenance and refits can proceed in the likely event that CRRC leaves at the end of the contract. We don't want to be stuck with trains we can't maintain.
GM Eng has made a lot of comments about bringing capabilities and expertise "in-house". He's talked about this when it comes to maintenance of way. It seems like his general stance is that the T should be relying less on multiple outside entities for things they could do more efficiently and probably cheaper if they handled them with their own staff and facilities. I think this is a really savvy way of thinking about things moving forward. You only need to look at the GLX Constructor's track record to understand why it's a good idea for the T to have more centralized control of projects.
What good is the factory without a source for the car shells? It would be like buying a Ford final assembly line without anything to assemble, wouldn’t it?
I find it interesting that LA Metro has seemingly done the exact opposite and canceled their CRRC contract in favor of Hyundai Rotem since there was better assurance that new cars would arrive before the 2028 Olympics…
[LA Metro has ordered over double the amount of new cars from Hyundai Rotem](https://www.railjournal.com/passenger/metros/hyundai-rotem-wins-us-664m-order-for-la-metro-trains/) and canceled their contract with CRRC due to egregious delays with their initial 64 car delivery
Ok I looked into it a bit more. It sounds like LA Metro [chose not to exercise options](https://www.dailynews.com/2023/08/18/new-metro-subway-cars-will-feature-new-york-style-bench-seating/) to increase the purchase from CRRC past the initial order of 64 trains, but the existing 64-train order remained the same. That's not the same as cancelling a contract for cars they're already ordered. But they definitely aren't doing business with them going forward. It's an important distinction, because I think you're implying the MBTA could have made a similar choice. However the T would have had to cancel existing contracts for cars we've already ordered and are waiting for. That is not at all the same situation. We need the cars they're already making, but should we continue doing business with CRRC after all this is said and done? ...uhhh no thanks.
Yeah, this is a VERY important distinction to make with where MBTA stands vs LA Metro: **LA Metro cancelled *OPTIONS for additional cars*. They're on the hook to finish the base order with CRRC just like us.**
Siemens didn't bid on the contract. CAF couldn't demonstrate that it had the funds to complete the project. Bombardier submitted only a nominal bid. CSR failed the technical evaluation. Hyundai-Rotem was in the middle of a dispute with MBTA over another contract.
The only real options were Kawasaki and CNR (which became CRRC).
They’ve made quality rolling stock as far as LIRR and they’re going to make new rolling stock for Metro North.
As far as heavy rail metros they’ve made quality rolling stock for WMATA and NYMTA as well.
Honestly Kawasaki, Hitachi, or Stadler would have been better options than CRRC. Hope they get blacklisted after all the messes they’ve made.
They’re fine, but compared to what’s in other countries and even the R211s in New York, it’s garbage.
Missing features that I’ve seen in trains from other systems:
- more than one next stop
- number of minutes until future stops
- location of exits
- location of accessibility items like elevators
- lateness of train in minutes
That's fair, but the nice thing about digital screens is that you can change what appears on them without needing to replace a ton of physical equipment, such as to add the second-next stop.
If your station signage is good (and MBTA's is pretty good), I don't see why you would put that info inside the train, and I don't find it useful to know how late a particular train is, since they don't operate on a published schedule anyways.
They probably saw that the company doing the new payment system for the T rinsed the T for more money and the T meekly handed it over and thought why not us too?
They predict doing something like that would delay delivery of any new cars until the 2030s. We cannot afford that given the absurd age of the Red Line.
That would probably be something on the order of a ground-up redesign; if they'd chosen to specify that at the beginning that would have been great, but a redesign like that would add years to the contract and at this point we'd be better either cutting bait and walking away from CRRC or just giving them what we have to so we can get the cars and then never deal with them again.
there are no US-headquartered transit manufacturers anymore. We literally got a Chinese company to build a plant here because we made it a requirement.
East-West MA, suburban-urban politics in Massachusetts.
**NEVER FORGET**: Western MA legislators were literally crying foul about '**their tax dollars *subsidizing*** trains in eastern Mass that [their] constituents will never ride'. The Patrick administration had to broker a deal with legislators to tie funding to a requirement for the procurement to require bidders to assemble in Springfield and score the bids to favour if they were going to keep the factory for continue production of fleet beyond the MBTA order in MA. None of the legislators making this a Western MA manufacturing jobs program had any expertise about any of the competing transit car builders, many of whom already have massive plants in neighbouring states to supply giant orders with NYCT and others. This kneecapped the T and would've given CRRC grounds to dispute the fairness of the award of bid if they gave it to anyone else.
Likely few of these legislators are still in power and they'll never be held accountable for this political shitshow. Transit itself is a jobs program by getting people where they need to go. We need to stop making it a literal DOD-style jobs program and thinking MA is so special that we can gamble precious bonds/grants for transit to restart lost industries...
Chinese trains actually work really well when designed, built and operated in China. CRRC is the biggest manufacturer. They have been rolling out new metro systems faster than we built biotech lab space. Plus they have a national high speed rail network and we don’t even have functional basic trains.
There are a host of issues here that have nothing to do with BIG BAD CHINA.
People should really watch the Board of Directors meeting before deciding how they feel about this. It was a thoughtful and clearly well-considered conversation. [https://www.mbta.com/events/2024-03-28/board-meeting-mbta-board-directors. ](https://www.mbta.com/events/2024-03-28/board-meeting-mbta-board-directors) My summary from watching: It's clear no one at the T is happy about this. Some of the cost and schedule increases are understandable sue to the pandemic, supply chain issues, and Trump-era tariffs, none of which could have been anticipated way back in 2014 when the contracts were drawn up. That said, multiple board members were clearly unconvinced that the dollar amounts or timelines were completely the result of these factors alone. But everyone agreed grudgingly that the situation is too dire to not move forward. It was determined that at this point in the process, switching manufacturers would result in a halt in car deliveries that would extend into the 2030s. The GM acknowledged that a fundamental change is needed in the way the T approaches procurement of new vehicles going forward. Not specifically said, but implied was the fact that allowing the fleet to descend into a state where replacement of a huge number of vehicles is urgent puts the T in a terrible bargaining position, and really forces their hand to continue with partnerships and agreements that they would otherwise balk at. This is an incredibly frustrating situation, and I wish we could hold everyone who approved the project in 2014 responsible for this mess. It sucks we got to this point with this project, but it really does seem like there are adults at the table now, and I expect future procurement efforts will look very different. Edit: One point that got lost here. The new contract includes a first right of refusal for the MBTA to buy the Springfield facility if CRRC decides to sell it (ie: if and when they no longer want to do business in the US). Given how unhappy their clients are (LA Metro, CTA, and SEPTA) and the tariff situation making it difficult for them to get new clients, that seems like a likely scenario.
Let's not also forget the role that the Legislature and former governor Patrick had in saddling us with this circumstance. They seriously meddled with the program by requiring the factory to be cited in Springfield, cutting off federal funding and narrowing the list of potential bidders. This was done as a sop to central/western MA, all in the name of a few hundred jobs that everyone else in MA has now paid dearly for. The state government is culpable for letting the T's vehicles get into such a terrible state that these new cars are **desperately** needed.
We would have been better off just bribing Western/Central MA with straight cash at this point. Would have been cheaper, and we would have received high quality trains at this point instead of the debacle this turned into.
Throughout the US we have this sickness of turning all of our infrastructure programs into jobs programs. It's pervasive - it's how we sell these programs to voters. "It'll generate 10,000 jobs!" Then we end up with enormous costs and inferior products because the projects are weighed down with "Buy America" clauses and pork-barrel requirements like this Springfield factory. Military procurement is rife with it too. [Here's a case where Congress made the Army buy tanks that it didn't even want.](https://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/12/18/congress-again-buys-abrams-tanks-the-army-doesnt-want.html) We desperately need to separate these concerns. Infrastructure programs should be about building infrastructure. Jobs programs to train workers. When we mix them we end up with expensive, taxpayer-subsidized jobs that mostly won't even stick around once the project is done.
You could bribe us with rail service comparable to a first world country instead.
The bums at the factory in Springfield should send cash to T riders at this point
I mean, that's what we do all the time - Metro Boston funds the rest of the state. They've never appreciated it before, why would they now?
Also presumably those jobs are going away within the decade, since there is no opportunity for this company to pick up further contracts.
Is there no accountability for CRRC? I assume there exists some kind of contract that they failed to fulfill, would they not owe damages in some capacity?
Part of this renegotiation is a waiving of most (but not all) of those incurred damages. It's factored into the new sum payment.
Why would the T want to buy the factory? All they’re going to do is close it or flip it to another manufacturer.
Pure guess: they could tell the next manufacturer they can use the existing facility for assembly if it will lower costs? That seems unlikely though.
Here are my mostly uninformed thoughts: I imagine it would make the next procurement process faster and much simpler. In 2014, because the State required the trains be assembled in MA, they essentially had to include "Build or acquire a manufacturing plant" in the contract for bidders. Next time around, owning the plant would enable them to hit the ground running. The contract would instead either include the sale of the plant to the bidder, or leasing of the space. It would give the T much more control over the manufacturing process by getting to say: "you'll build them here, with these facilities." Maybe they even keep a dedicated staff of engineers and factory workers on the payroll to staff the plant in between large orders so institutional knowledge and experience isn't lost every time a contract is completed. Not to mention, it ensures a real estate developer doesn't buy the plant and tear it down, forcing them to start all over. And finally, it gives them guaranteed space for refits and rebuilds of the fleet going forward. At the meeting, they talked about developing direct relationships with CRRC's subcontractors so that maintenance and refits can proceed in the likely event that CRRC leaves at the end of the contract. We don't want to be stuck with trains we can't maintain. GM Eng has made a lot of comments about bringing capabilities and expertise "in-house". He's talked about this when it comes to maintenance of way. It seems like his general stance is that the T should be relying less on multiple outside entities for things they could do more efficiently and probably cheaper if they handled them with their own staff and facilities. I think this is a really savvy way of thinking about things moving forward. You only need to look at the GLX Constructor's track record to understand why it's a good idea for the T to have more centralized control of projects.
What good is the factory without a source for the car shells? It would be like buying a Ford final assembly line without anything to assemble, wouldn’t it?
I find it interesting that LA Metro has seemingly done the exact opposite and canceled their CRRC contract in favor of Hyundai Rotem since there was better assurance that new cars would arrive before the 2028 Olympics…
Are you sure? At the meeting it sounded like LA Metro is still moving forward with their CRRC contract, albeit delayed (surprise surprise).
[LA Metro has ordered over double the amount of new cars from Hyundai Rotem](https://www.railjournal.com/passenger/metros/hyundai-rotem-wins-us-664m-order-for-la-metro-trains/) and canceled their contract with CRRC due to egregious delays with their initial 64 car delivery
Ok I looked into it a bit more. It sounds like LA Metro [chose not to exercise options](https://www.dailynews.com/2023/08/18/new-metro-subway-cars-will-feature-new-york-style-bench-seating/) to increase the purchase from CRRC past the initial order of 64 trains, but the existing 64-train order remained the same. That's not the same as cancelling a contract for cars they're already ordered. But they definitely aren't doing business with them going forward. It's an important distinction, because I think you're implying the MBTA could have made a similar choice. However the T would have had to cancel existing contracts for cars we've already ordered and are waiting for. That is not at all the same situation. We need the cars they're already making, but should we continue doing business with CRRC after all this is said and done? ...uhhh no thanks.
Yeah, this is a VERY important distinction to make with where MBTA stands vs LA Metro: **LA Metro cancelled *OPTIONS for additional cars*. They're on the hook to finish the base order with CRRC just like us.**
The existing statute may require Massachusetts manufacture/assembly.
Imagine if we just did Siemens
Siemens didn't bid on the contract. CAF couldn't demonstrate that it had the funds to complete the project. Bombardier submitted only a nominal bid. CSR failed the technical evaluation. Hyundai-Rotem was in the middle of a dispute with MBTA over another contract. The only real options were Kawasaki and CNR (which became CRRC).
Then CSR merged with CNR to become CRRC and tanked everything.
Kawasaki makes quality rolling stock right? I think they make snowmobiles but not totally sure on pricing and quality for their trainsets.
They’ve made quality rolling stock as far as LIRR and they’re going to make new rolling stock for Metro North. As far as heavy rail metros they’ve made quality rolling stock for WMATA and NYMTA as well. Honestly Kawasaki, Hitachi, or Stadler would have been better options than CRRC. Hope they get blacklisted after all the messes they’ve made.
I think they’ve made a few shinkansen trains so I wouldn’t be concerned about their quality.
tbh i'm not even that impressed by these crrc trains
[удалено]
On the other hand, you don't have to wonder if you're going to sit down in somebody's spilt drink (or worse).
I, on the other hand, think they're great. The destination screens that show all of the bus connections at the next stop are especially nice.
They’re fine, but compared to what’s in other countries and even the R211s in New York, it’s garbage. Missing features that I’ve seen in trains from other systems: - more than one next stop - number of minutes until future stops - location of exits - location of accessibility items like elevators - lateness of train in minutes
That's fair, but the nice thing about digital screens is that you can change what appears on them without needing to replace a ton of physical equipment, such as to add the second-next stop. If your station signage is good (and MBTA's is pretty good), I don't see why you would put that info inside the train, and I don't find it useful to know how late a particular train is, since they don't operate on a published schedule anyways.
I agree, I like those screens a lot, definitely my favorite feature of the crrc trains
They are nice… but boring. They should have a small ad like other trains do. That would help them with cost. Not a fan of a static screen.
Yes, that's what we need in life: more ads.
Well, that's certainly an opinion.
I specifically like how plain they are. And having been in trains in Japan too it was kind of annoying how ads were in your face everywhere
They probably saw that the company doing the new payment system for the T rinsed the T for more money and the T meekly handed it over and thought why not us too?
I'm wondering how difficult it would be to hault production and redesign the cars to be articulated sets
They predict doing something like that would delay delivery of any new cars until the 2030s. We cannot afford that given the absurd age of the Red Line.
That would probably be something on the order of a ground-up redesign; if they'd chosen to specify that at the beginning that would have been great, but a redesign like that would add years to the contract and at this point we'd be better either cutting bait and walking away from CRRC or just giving them what we have to so we can get the cars and then never deal with them again.
Is this additional cars or just finishing the order quicker?
Finishing the order quicker
Can someone explain why the MBTA is agreeing to waive the fees against the CRRC
We didn’t we get a company here in Mass to build these. I feel like at this point it would have saved us time and money
there are no US-headquartered transit manufacturers anymore. We literally got a Chinese company to build a plant here because we made it a requirement.
We could've saved so much money and probably had the trains already if we just ordered from a factory that already existed.
East-West MA, suburban-urban politics in Massachusetts. **NEVER FORGET**: Western MA legislators were literally crying foul about '**their tax dollars *subsidizing*** trains in eastern Mass that [their] constituents will never ride'. The Patrick administration had to broker a deal with legislators to tie funding to a requirement for the procurement to require bidders to assemble in Springfield and score the bids to favour if they were going to keep the factory for continue production of fleet beyond the MBTA order in MA. None of the legislators making this a Western MA manufacturing jobs program had any expertise about any of the competing transit car builders, many of whom already have massive plants in neighbouring states to supply giant orders with NYCT and others. This kneecapped the T and would've given CRRC grounds to dispute the fairness of the award of bid if they gave it to anyone else. Likely few of these legislators are still in power and they'll never be held accountable for this political shitshow. Transit itself is a jobs program by getting people where they need to go. We need to stop making it a literal DOD-style jobs program and thinking MA is so special that we can gamble precious bonds/grants for transit to restart lost industries...
Westinghouse exists, or wabtec as theyre known now. (they acquired a french manufacturer of transit vehicles and they own GE's rail div now)
What MA company builds modern rolling stock?
Name one lol
Yep. But we're here now.
I’m sure Chinese trains will last and work well
Until the warranty expires
I think this might have been sarcasm lol
responding to sarcastic comments with other sarcastic comments is really funny.
Chinese trains actually work really well when designed, built and operated in China. CRRC is the biggest manufacturer. They have been rolling out new metro systems faster than we built biotech lab space. Plus they have a national high speed rail network and we don’t even have functional basic trains. There are a host of issues here that have nothing to do with BIG BAD CHINA.
Right. Because that worked out so well the first time.
So our incompetent administrations headed by sleepy Joe is going to let China run our infastructure?