A D V E R T I S E M E N T
A D V E R T I S E M E N T
Courtesy of TriMet
TriMet spent $150,000 for two former Alaska Railroad passenger cars to help replace out-of-service WES diesel rail cars. The 1953 Budd Co. rail cars could be ready for service on the commuter rail line by next summer.
ADVERTISEMENTS
When mechanical problems knocked out TriMet’s WES commuter rail service Wednesday morning, the transit agency had no place to turn for a replacement train. That all changes at the end of this year.
TriMet has purchased two rail diesel cars from the Alaska Railroad that will be in service by summer 2010 on the westside commuter line as replacement cars when something goes wrong with the new Colorado Railcar trains.
TriMet spent $150,000 for the two cars that were built in 1953 by the Budd Co. of Troy, Mich. Budd Co. built stainless steel streamlined passenger railroad cars for nearly 40 years beginning in the 1930s.
Transit agency spokeswoman Bekki Witt said the rail cars will be delivered by the end of this year and should be ready for WES service next summer. The Alaska Railroad cars were used for passenger service until March, she said.
The new Colorado Railcar trains purchased last year by TriMet were modeled after the 1953 Budd Co. cars, Witt said.
For the third time in about a month, morning WES commuters had to take shuttle buses Wednesday between Wilsonville and Beaverton because of an electrical component failure on one of the rail cars. The component was replaced but the programming wasn’t complete in time for Wednesday morning’s commute.
Four of the 16 morning WES trips were on shuttle buses. The problems were corrected in time for Wednesday afternoon’s commute.
Mechanical troubles seem more glaring on WES because right now TriMet doesn’t have backup rail cars, Witt said. The WES system has bugs just like buses and light-rail trains, she said, but equipment problems have a larger impact on the commuter rail line.
“It is just more noticeable with WES because we do not have spare vehicles and must supplement train service with shuttle buses when a WES vehicle is out for repair,” Witt said.
The 14.7-mile $166 million westside commuter system opened in February as one of the nation’s first suburb-to-suburb rail lines.
"WES is a waste"
No, taking an hour to go the same distance riding WES for 30 minutes is a waste.
Just imagine how many millions of dollars are wasted on highways and freeways that are always congested.
(email verified)
Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 09:07 AM
One or more of the following people need to be fired:
The person who is in charge of train maintenance
The person who approved the original purchase agreement
The person who approved purchase of two spare trains
I'm unemployed and qualified for all three jobs. I'm looking forward to applying for these positions soon.
(email verified)
Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 11:28 AM
This is rich; the reason Tri-Met defended going over-budget on this boondoggle was because the feds supposedly mandated custom built commuter trains for this specific project. But now, Tri-Met can buy used train cars and retrofit them for WES? Something really stinks here.
And Chris, I defy you to find any congestion relief induced by MAX or WES.
(email verified)
Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 12:42 PM
Hello: Love this story. I've been a fan of the Budd RDC's since they were first sold to the B&M Railroad back in the early fifties. However, I would like to correct one item. The Budds were built in Red Lion PA. The original factory located fifty miles west of Philadelphia has been torn down several years ago. A somewhat related story appeared in the Boston Globe on 10/25/09.
(email verified)
Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 01:59 PM
Wow - Alaska retired it's junk trains and Oregon bought them to add to it's showcase!
Perhaps Alaska has smarter people employed there and don't waste taxpayer's money as much as here.
Or maybe we should have bought them from the start instead of wasting 160 millions on experimental product.
Those might be actually reliable working trains for a change.
(email verified)
Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 02:23 PM
In the initial planning for what would become WES, I asked TriMet's project manager during a town hall meeting in Tualatin why these vehicles were not considered. I was told that they were unreliable, undesirable, and did not meet federal requirements. (The last part is quite true, these cars violate 49CFR238, which actually is the justification for TriMet's violating virtually all contracting rules, and requiring the purchase of the Colorado Railcar cars, claimed to be the only cars which met this particular requirement.)
Ironic that TriMet is now fixing its $20 million mistake with a $150,000 purchase that would have saved TriMet a lot of time and aggravation had they listened to me before the deal with CRC was signed - but how is TriMet going to violate federal law to run these cars? By federal law, these cars can't operate unless P&W agrees to halt all freight traffic, and install permanent derails on the main track to prevent a freight train from accidently running onto the line while it is in operation. And P&W refused to hold its freight trains back, thus requiring the use of the Colorado Railcar vehicles.
So which is it?
And the bigger question: How many bus lines/trips is TriMet going to cut to pay for this $150,000 unbudgeted expense? I see that in November TriMet is eliminating all Frequent Service schedules, but WES is not sharing in the cutbacks.
(email verified)
Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 04:50 PM
This is a correction to "Al Campbell's" email.
The Budd Company plant, builder of the ex-Alaska RR
RDCs, was located on RED LION ROAD in Philadelphia,PA.
PHILADELPHIA,PA...not 50 miles west.
The plant was dismantled several years ago.
A housing development now covers the site.
Tom Moran
(email verified)
Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 05:48 PM
The BUDD RDC cars are fully FRA compliant. They were FRA compliant in 1953 and they remain so today. They will run in normal service as "spare's" when necessary just as the DMU's do. There is no violation of part 238. THese cars were used in Alaska a passenger cars on an active freight railroad just as TriMet will operate them here...no FRA "violation".
In terms of maintenace...the most recent DMU problems were caused by an intermittant electrical component failure. Diligent preventive maintance will not necessarily discover these types of failures. The previous problem was caused by an internal failure of a heat exchanger....the train had to be kept out of service until maintenance was performed otherwise the DMU could have been damaged. Diligent preventive maintance will not necessarily discover these types of failures.....sometimes machines break.
In terms of the RDC purchase. If TriMet were to spend 5 million on another DMU as a spare they would be criticized for wasting money. Utilizing an existing resource to add spare vehicles is a smart move...especially for the money. None of this would be an issue if WES had a spare train currently. Buses and MAX trains break all of the time but thier service is augmented by thier spare ratio.
(email verified)
Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 09:07 AM
Wester:
I've been told by numerous reliable sources, including with other transit agencies who have investigated the use of the Budd RDC, is that they do not comply with 49CFR238.
They are legal only if they were already in service with the railroad prior to the enactment of the law. Therefore their use with the Alaska Railroad was fully compliant, as they were grandfathered. Likewise they are in use with the Trinity Railway Express between Dallas and Fort Worth were they have been in use for over a decade and that system can continue to use the RDCs.
Here are the citations from the law:
§ 238.3 Applicability.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, this part applies to all:
(1) Railroads that operate intercity or commuter passenger train service on standard gage track which is part of the general railroad system of transportation; and
(2) Railroads that provide commuter or other short-haul rail passenger train service in a metropolitan or suburban area as described by 49 U.S.C. 20102(1), including public authorities operating passenger train service.
(b) Railroads that permit to be used or hauled on their lines passenger equipment subject to this part, in violation of a power brake provision of this part or a safety appliance provision of this part, are subject to the power brake and safety appliance provisions of this part with respect to such operations.
(c) This part does not apply to:
(1) Rapid transit operations in an urban area that are not connected to the general railroad system of transportation;
(2) A railroad that operates only on track inside an installation that is not part of the general railroad system of transportation;
(3) Tourist, scenic, historic, or excursion operations, whether on or off the general railroad system of transportation; or
(4) Circus trains.
§ 238.203 Static end strength.
(a)(1) Except as further specified in this paragraph or in paragraph (d), on or after November 8, 1999 all passenger equipment shall resist a minimum static end load of 800,000 pounds applied on the line of draft without permanent deformation of the body structure.
(2) For a passenger car or a locomotive, the static end strength of unoccupied volumes may be less than 800,000 pounds if:
(i) Energy absorbing structures are used as part of a crash energy management design of the passenger car or locomotive, and
(ii) The passenger car or locomotive resists a minimum static end load of 800,000 pounds applied on the line of draft at the ends of its occupied volume without permanent deformation of the body structure.
(3) For a locomotive placed in service prior to November 8, 1999, as an alternative to resisting a minimum static end load of 800,000 pounds applied on the line of draft without permanent deformation of the body structure, the locomotive shall resist a horizontal load of 1,000,000 pounds applied along the longitudinal center line of the locomotive at a point on the buffer beam construction 12 inches above the center line of draft without permanent deformation of the body structure. The application of this load shall not be distributed over an area greater than 6 inches by 24 inches. The alternative specified in this paragraph is not applicable to a cab car or an MU locomotive.
(4) The requirements of this paragraph do not apply to:
(i) A private car; or
(ii) Unoccupied passenger equipment operating at the rear of a passenger train.
(b) Passenger equipment placed in service before November 8, 1999 is presumed to comply with the requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of this section, unless the railroad operating the equipment has knowledge, or FRA makes a showing, that such passenger equipment was not built to the requirements specified in paragraph (a)(1).
(c) When overloaded in compression, the body structure of passenger equipment shall be designed, to the maximum extent possible, to fail by buckling or crushing, or both, of structural members rather than by fracture of structural members or failure of structural connections.
(d) Grandfathering of non-compliant equipment for use on a specified rail line or lines —(1) Grandfathering approval is equipment and line specific. Grandfathering approval of non-compliant equipment under this paragraph is limited to usage of the equipment on a particular rail line or lines. Before grandfathered equipment can be used on another rail line, a railroad must file and secure approval of a grandfathering petition under paragraph (d)(3) of this section.
(2) Temporary usage of non-compliant equipment. Any passenger equipment placed in service on a rail line or lines before November 8, 1999 that does not comply with the requirements of paragraph (a)(1) may continue to be operated on that particular line or (those particular lines) if the operator of the equipment files a petition seeking grandfathering approval under paragraph (d)(3) before November 8, 1999. Such usage may continue while the petition is being processed, but in no event later than May 8, 2000, unless the petition is approved.
(3) Petitions for grandfathering. Petitions for grandfathering shall include:
(i) The name, title, address, and telephone number of the primary person to be contacted with respect to the petition;
(ii) Information, including detailed drawings and material specifications, sufficient to describe the actual construction of the equipment;
(iii) Engineering analysis sufficient to describe the likely performance of the static end strength of the equipment and the likely performance of the equipment in derailment and collision scenarios pertinent to the equipment's static end strength;
(iv) A description of risk mitigation measures that will be employed in connection with the usage of the equipment on a specified rail line or lines to decrease the likelihood of accidents involving the use of the equipment; and
(v) A quantitative risk assessment, incorporating the design information, engineering analysis, and risk mitigation measures described in this paragraph, demonstrating that the use of the equipment, as utilized in the service environment for which recognition is sought, is in the public interest and is consistent with railroad safety.
(e) Service. Each petition shall be submitted to the Associate Administrator for Safety, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Mail Stop 25, Washington, DC 20590.
(f) Federal Register notice. FRA will publish a notice in theFederal Registerconcerning each petition under paragraph (d) of this section.
(g) Comment. Not later than 30 days from the date of publication of the notice in theFederal Registerconcerning a petition under paragraph (d) of this section, any person may comment on the petition.
(1) Each comment shall set forth specifically the basis upon which it is made, and contain a concise statement of the interest of the commenter in the proceeding.
(2) Each comment shall be submitted to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations (M–30), West Building Ground Floor, Room W12B140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, and shall contain the assigned docket number for that proceeding. The form of such submission may be in written or electronic form consistent with the standards and requirements established by the Federal Docket Management System and posted on its web site at http://www.regulations.gov.
(h) Disposition of petitions (1) If the Administrator finds it necessary or desirable, FRA will conduct a hearing on a petition in accordance with the procedures provided in §211.25 of this chapter.
(2) If FRA finds that the petition complies with the requirements of this section and that the proposed usage is in the public interest and consistent with railroad safety, the petition will be granted, normally within 90 days of its receipt. If the petition is neither granted nor denied within 90 days, the petition remains pending for decision. FRA may attach special conditions to the approval of the petition. Following the approval of a petition, FRA may reopen consideration of the petition for cause stated.
(3) If FRA finds that the petition does not comply with the requirements of this section or that the proposed usage is not in the public interest and consistent with railroad safety, the petition will be denied, normally within 90 days of its receipt.
(4) When FRA grants or denies a petition, or reopens consideration of the petition, written notice is sent to the petitioner and other interested parties.
[64 FR 25660, May 12, 1999, as amended at 64 FR 70196, Dec. 16, 1999; 67 FR 19991, Apr. 23, 2002; 74 FR 25174, May 27, 2009]
However, since TriMet did not have the vehicles in service prior to 2002 when the crashworthiness regulation was enacted, TriMet cannot import the vehicles without a FRA waiver (else why can't TriMet use any other non-compliant vehicle without a waiver?)
Someone else suggested they would qualify for a waiver as they are historic; however that only applies if the route is a museum; and TriMet is not a museum (save for their obsolete buses).
(email verified)
Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 01:16 PM
"I defy you to find any congestion relief induced by MAX or WES."
@Chris Mullen. I defy you to find a single rider on MAX or WES that is caught in congestion. They certainly provide relief for the people who use them.
(email verified)
Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 03:59 PM
Eric H.
You are incorrect....WES will operate the RDC's in service with no waivers. Here is the local FRA number for you to call. Be sure and add a note here to clarify your position when you actually find out the facts.
Paul Wilson
CHief Inspector FRA
360-666-3152
(email verified)
Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 07:32 AM
Riding WES would turn my 20-30 minute commute from Tigard to Wilsonville into at least an hour each way. Most of that time is getting to/from the stations. It would have helped if they had selected a more central location for the Wilsonville station, but expecting TriMet to use common sense is asking too much.
(email verified)
Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 04:03 PM
To More taxpayer money wasted,
Guess you forgot about the Bridge to No Where that Alaska was building. That would have wasted far more money than Tri-Met has spent on its entire system, and it would have provided about 1% of the benefit that Tri-Met does.
(email verified)
Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 09:06 PM
Eric,
If you call the local FRA office in Vancouver and ask to speak to the Chief Inspector he will verify that TriMet does not need any waivers to operate these vehicles on the WES alignment. After you do that please post back. No waivers - fully compliant.
The requirements of this paragraph do not apply to:
b) Passenger equipment placed in service before November 8, 1999 is presumed to comply with the requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of this section, unless the railroad operating the equipment has knowledge, or FRA makes a showing, that such passenger equipment was not built to the requirements specified in paragraph (a)(1).
(email verified)
Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 03:07 PM
Find a paper
Enter a street name
or a 5 digit zip code
Browse archive
The Times
News feed
Facebook
Digg
Del.icio.us
Newsvine
Stumbleupon
Reddit
Re: TriMet adds ‘new’ rail cars to backup WES
Figures, more money wasted on this commuter line. What a waste.
"WES is a waste"
(email verified)
Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 08:00 AM