GO Transit Electrification | Metrolinx

[kEiThZ]

I have no experience with DBFOM contracts and there very well may be huge differences, but I have been peripherally involved in Ontario government procurement contracts involving both computer systems and telecommunications networks. The government is horrible at setting out clear parameters in terms of aspects such as equipment, performance, etc. and later enforcing them (they are even worse at in-house development; e-health anyone?). Deficiencies discovered after implementation often end up with the government throwing more money at the contractor because either they don't want to take the contractor to court, won't publicly admit they got into a flawed contract and/or the project is so far down the road (or the government is desparate because the preexisting system/process is so out of date) the contractor knows that there no turning back. The federal Phoenix payroll system is an example, as are the highway maintenance contracts of a few years ago. In one case, it was clear the a successful bidder didn't have the equipment to meet the contract, so the government's answer was to buy more and give it to them. Again, DBFOM contracts may well be different.

No specific experience with DBFOM contracts. But it sounds a lot like our performance based contracts on the military side. And for all that you hear about military procurement being broken, you never hear about performance based contracts, because they work quite well for us. And this has been the case federally for two decades now.

Sure, there's an element of competence required by the contract authorities and project teams to spec out required performance. But that burden is usually less than the knowledge required to discern between competing technologies, mapping out TRLs, and deciding what level of investment is required to deliver a desired level of services. All those decisions and risks are transferred to the bidder.

They are also not concerned with how much initial infrastructure costs that comes with the type of technology as the taxpayers are on the hook for that.

This statement shows you don't get how DBFOM contracts work.

 

[kEiThZ]

I am pretty skeptical of ML’s approach to P3,

I will go one step further. I don't trust a government bureaucracy to make the right choice between competing technologies, and scope out risk properly. Way too susceptible to political interference. This is why I like DBFOM contracts in these kinds of situations.

 

[torontocolin]

That $1.5 billion could buy 100 more trains and instead of the travelling public being crammed onto smaller or less frequent trains they could enjoy shorter waits and/or getting a seat but that does not work into the equation.

You realize the 'O' in DBFOM stands for "operate" right? Of course that factors into the equation. But also, it's not like the bidder just dictates what the service levels will be.

 

[KevinT]

Exactly. GO has what we in the military call, "a no-fail mission". GO having any sort of reliability issues could actually cripple the GTA. The costs of that could well exceed any savings from using newer technologies.

Again though, this is what's great about DBFOM. The taxpayers don't have to decide which technology is great. They just have to ask for the frequency, capacity and cost they want. Industry decides on how to deliver.

Every consortium knows their tech. They know their costs. They know its reliability. They will adjust their bids accordingly.

But only if the DBFOM contract is structured with adequate financial penalties in place for any failure to meet the frequency and capacity targets. I'd be most nervous about that.

 

[KevinT]

If they build catenary a company may save, as an example, save ML $50 million/year and win the contract but the fact that it will cost ML an extra $1.5 billion in infrastructure over hydrogen or battery is not considered. That $1.5 billion could buy 100 more trains and instead of the travelling public being crammed onto smaller or less frequent trains they could enjoy shorter waits and/or getting a seat but that does not work into the equation.

I'm continually amazed at your assumption of minimal infrastructure costs for building a hydrogen economy where none exists. It ain't gasoline, its manufacture, transport, storage, and handling difficulties (not to mention its poorer energy density than liquid fuels when the weight/complexity of the storage container is taken into account) are very non-trivial.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I'm continually amazed at your assumption of minimal infrastructure costs for building a hydrogen economy where none exists. It ain't gasoline, its manufacture, transport, storage, and handling difficulties (not to mention its poorer energy density than liquid fuels when the weight/complexity of the storage container is taken into account) are very non-trivial.

Meh, it only boils at 20 degrees - Kelvin.

AoD

 

[cplchanb]

I'm continually amazed at your assumption of minimal infrastructure costs for building a hydrogen economy where none exists. It ain't gasoline, its manufacture, transport, storage, and handling difficulties (not to mention its poorer energy density than liquid fuels when the weight/complexity of the storage container is taken into account) are very non-trivial.

its becoming more and more suspect that he/she is just trolling us for the sake of it ....either that or his/her density is like a neutron star.

 

[ssiguy2]

For clarification it is a he.

As I have stated several times I am NOT, in any way shape of form, against catenary as it may well turn out to be the best option. My point is that hydrogen or battery could also turn out to be the best options but if none of the 4 bidders are even considering it then Toronto could find itself using the best bidder but of worst technology. This is why I believe that ML should have put out the bidders but those bidders should have had to include companies that, for example, offer 2 catenary, 2 hydrogen, and 2 battery bidders. This would allow ML to make a truly informed decision tto ensure that not only they get the best operational system but also the best technology.

 

[crs1026]

I'm continually amazed at your assumption of minimal infrastructure costs for building a hydrogen economy where none exists. It ain't gasoline, its manufacture, transport, storage, and handling difficulties (not to mention its poorer energy density than liquid fuels when the weight/complexity of the storage container is taken into account) are very non-trivial.

Agree....and that's the rub. Suppose ML goes ahead and puts a priority on Hydrogen. I know of no other large hydrogen consumer in the GTA. Sure, someone may be eager to invest in that first GTA area Hydrogen refinery, with ML as its first steady, large volume customer backstopping their risk. But how large will that first refinery be? What level of inventory will it maintain? How many days' supply does ML have to maintain on hand as contingency against a refinery outage? (I'm not knowledgeable, what is the volume of Hydrogen that has to be trucked in daily compared with the volume of diesel fuel that is trucked in today....more deliveries? How many trucks will be needed? How much on-site storage?)

With diesel, ML has a very high confidence that someone will be able to truck in all the fuel they need, on a daily basis, with no interruption in supply likely. There is no big tank farm at Willowbrook - if the usual supplier doesn't show, there are others in the phone book who are happy to turn up.

Never mind all the standards that will have to be reviewed (if they exist in other jurisdictions) before that plant can open. One leaking train under the trainshed at Union is all it would take for the fire chief to shut down the whole operation.

I'm sure, in ten years this will all be sorted out and hydrogen will be available broadly and commonplace.... but it would be a very poor decision to make a crash test dummy out of RER for those first ten years of teething.

- Paul

 

[ssiguy2]

That is a very valid point and one of the many reasons why catenary could be the superior choice. I simply think that making sure all potential systems are vigorously explored in an impartial fashion is not only prudent but also responsible.

BTW, an update...………...San Bernardino is introducing a 14 km commuter/suburban rail line and construction has just begun. They will use 3 DMU and one new zero emission train that will be a DMU converted to either hydrogen or a battery system with recharging only at station stops. as they want to review both hydrogen and battery technology to see which is the best fit. When they do all 4 trains will be converted to zero emissions.

 

[44 North]

This is sort of what I'd want to see here. Baby steps, a study. Perhaps not on any of the GO corridors, they're too busy. This would be for a new low-use service. Say Summerhill to Locust Hill. And it could maybe be a pilot project done in conjunction with universities and private investment. Test out battery, hydrogen, compressed air(?). Two trains in the am, two in the pm, a few hundred riders all day total. Start small and explore.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Key word - 4 trains. UPX got more than that.

AoD

 

[cplchanb]

That is a very valid point and one of the many reasons why catenary could be the superior choice. I simply think that making sure all potential systems are vigorously explored in an impartial fashion is not only prudent but also responsible.

BTW, an update...………...San Bernardino is introducing a 14 km commuter/suburban rail line and construction has just begun. They will use 3 DMU and one new zero emission train that will be a DMU converted to either hydrogen or a battery system with recharging only at station stops. as they want to review both hydrogen and battery technology to see which is the best fit. When they do all 4 trains will be converted to zero emissions.

Mainline Construction Begins for Redlands Passenger Rail Project - InlandEmpire.us

The San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) has begun mainline construction on the Redlands Passenger Rail Project, which is bringing the next generation of passenger rail service to the East Valley.

inlandempire.us

Zero-emission train from San Bernardino to Redlands would be first in North America

The San Bernardino County Transportation Authority received a $30 million grant from the state to convert a diesel train into a zero-emission unit.

www.whittierdailynews.com

get your facts straight.... they said it MAY be converted and the single train will be a test train so no guarantees. Even still, its years away.

 

[lenaitch]

But only if the DBFOM contract is structured with adequate financial penalties in place for any failure to meet the frequency and capacity targets. I'd be most nervous about that.

This is one my concerns as well. The argument is somewhat similar to the various configurations being speculated upon in the Ontario Line thread. A successful supplier says technology and/or configuration 'x' will work, and even the government reviewers/approvers seem to agree. But come the post-construction day of test runs, it turns out that it cannot (e.g.) make the grade or curve during wet snow conditions. The contract would seem to state that the builder has the make it work, but the builder says can't do it without more money, and if you try to make us, we will go bankrupt. No government wants to be seen and remembered as the government that drove companies out of business and made people unemployed. The only advantage in these types of projects is by the time it is done the government has changed and they get to blame the other guys, but at the end of the day it still needs to be made to work, so more money or downgraded performance. I have seen it, obviously on a smaller scale, where a clear performance element was not met - the provider said they cannot without more money. The government caved. The government is never isolated from the risk.

 

[rbt]

The contract would seem to state that the builder has the make it work, but the builder says can't do it without more money, and if you try to make us, we will go bankrupt. No government wants to be seen and remembered as the government that drove companies out of business and made people unemployed.

One of the interesting aspects of the GO RER DBFOM, is each of the 4 bidders involves a foreign government corporation.

Deutsche Bahn, SNCF, MTR, and finally RATP (with Bombardier).

Fining or removing the company for non-performance may be a far bigger problem to the foreign government than our own. It'll make for very interesting politics if it happens.