| Railway Preservation News https://rypn.org/forums/ |
|
| SFMTA car #1 https://rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=27341 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | kjohnson [ Wed Apr 15, 2009 10:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | SFMTA car #1 |
Hi, Here is an article in sfgate (SF Chronicle) regarding San Francisco's Historic streetcar #1 going out for overhaul. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 170RQ6.DTL Karl J. |
|
| Author: | Andy Nold [ Thu Apr 16, 2009 1:00 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: SFMTA car #1 |
Geez, Karl, what all are they supposed to do to that car? New motors and trucks? Air conditioning, ADA lifts and new control system? Does that include chopper control and a pantograph? I really am not trying to be critical but it seems like a lot of money. I am curious about what their commitment is to the historic fabric too. Will this be "grandfather's axe"? New handle and new blade, but still granpa's old axe. I wonder if Gomaco bid on the project. |
|
| Author: | softwerkslex [ Thu Apr 16, 2009 2:02 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: SFMTA car #1 "Muni" |
I have ridden this car at various times since 1982. It is also pictured in detail in "The Peoples' Railway" from Interurban Press. On my most recent ride, in 2005, I was shocked at how worn it was. In 1982 I perceived it to retain a significant amount of historic fabric. For example, it has cast bronze bolster pin covers in the floor that have the manufacturer's logo. In 1982 these were still legible. In 2005, foot traffic had worn these down considerably. Operating this car in daily service is a terrible risk for an irreplaceable artifact (the first streetcar of the first publicly owned transit system in the country). I suspect the repair cost reflects an attempt to replicate many historic materials, and perhaps a stock of parts as well. |
|
| Author: | Andy Nold [ Thu Apr 16, 2009 10:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: SFMTA car #1 |
Excellent reply/explanation to the situation in the SF Weekly - http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2009/04/trolley_maven_defends_munis_19.php |
|
| Author: | robertmacdowell [ Thu Apr 16, 2009 2:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: SFMTA car #1 |
I don't know. Those costs make no sense to me. I mean, the $1.8M -- okay... that's a lot of custom craftsman work, a lot of which is heavy mechanical. That actually makes sense to me. Where they just lose me is $3 million for an LRV. Every batch is a custom build with lots of expensive learning curve, and an utterly bizarre procurement process which does not reward a company's skill or reputation. And of course nobody in the private sector buys LRVs, so there's no reality check to say "if you're paying $200,000 for a Silverado pickup, your procurement process is broken." I guess it made sense when there were, what, 5 cities in the U.S. buying LRVs. But now there's like 30. Far be it from me to utter the words "U.S. standard light rail vehicle", but maybe Obama should call together a Conference Committee... |
|
| Author: | Al Stangenberger [ Thu Apr 16, 2009 8:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: SFMTA car #1 |
Given today's wages, the bill is not surprising. So far, WRM has between $200K and $250K invested in SN 1005 (a 1913 Holman product, SFMRy #1 is a 1912 Holman). Only about four months of one person's time is in that figure as labor, the rest is parts, supplies, and equipment. If we could decide on a fair value for the volunteer labor on the project, I'm sure we could easily exceed what Muni is paying for restoring the 1. And we didn't have to pay for round-trip truck transportation to Pennsylvania. |
|
| Author: | Randy Hees [ Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:48 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: SFMTA car #1 |
Having in a past life bid on Muni contracts (generally successfully), the paperwork load, sign offs (for various reasonable and unreasonable political actions) and such were a major burden, and added significantly to the cost of a contract. Their specifications were specific and nonnegotiable. We once filled a contract for a specifically maple bumper for a tractor... Other woods were not considered. The maple needed to be from a specific documented forestry practice. We sourced the wood (sometimes it works being a restoration wonk) and fulfilled the contract as written. There were options which might have reduced the significant cost... but it was not an option. This was as more a function of bureaucracy than it was political... Once a spec was developed it couldn't be questioned without revisiting the whole process. The process is a function of rules written to reduce graft. On the the other hand, this is a significant, recognized city artifact. Worthy of a significant expenditure of city funds in the way we might spend on a public fountain or statue. Additionally all public agencies have pots of money, for specific uses, and are not just money to be spent for anything the public demands. For example, capital money can't be spent for operations. It seems like a bunch of money, but really, taking labor (which generally we don't), regulations, liability and such it is bordering on reasonable... |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|