Je suis d’accord pour l’appel d’offre, mais si une condition est d’avoir une usine au Québec et avoir 25% du train fait localement, alors les Siemens, CAF et CRRC risquent de se retirer de l’appel.
C’est comme le tramway de Québec. Au final il n’y a eu, de mémoire, qu’un soumissionnaire: Alstom.
Est-ce que quelqu’un ici se souvient encore de la saga du remplacement des voitures MR-63 du métro de Montréal au début des années 2010? Est-ce qu’on aura droit à une nouvelle saga pour les MR-73? 
C’est en 2014 que la STM a annoncé la prolongation de la durée de vie des MR-73 jusqu’en 2036 (60 ans)
Montréal, le 29 octobre 2014 – La Société de transport de Montréal (STM) a fait le point aujourd’hui sur sa réflexion concernant l’avenir des voitures de métro MR-73 acquises entre 1976 et 1980.
«Le Plan stratégique 2020 prévoyait le remplacement en continu du parc de voitures de métro, composé de 336 voitures MR-63 et de 423 MR-73. Le contexte a évolué et les défis financiers auxquels font face toutes les entités publiques, nous a amenés à réfléchir aux moyens les plus efficaces d’investir et de garantir un maintien adéquat des actifs, tout en continuant à offrir un service fiable et à répondre à la croissance de la demande de déplacements», a déclaré M. Philippe Schnobb, président du conseil d’administration de la STM.
La STM privilégie plutôt de prolonger à 60 ans la durée de vie utile des MR-73. La réflexion ayant mené à ce choix s’est notamment inspirée d’un rapport de 2012 du Collège impérial de Londres («Rolling Stock Replacement vs Refurbishment») qui fait état d’un nombre croissant de sociétés de transport de haut calibre qui ont choisi de rénover leurs voitures de métro pour en prolonger la durée de vie. Ce rapport recommande d’étudier sérieusement cette option pour le matériel roulant faisant preuve d’une bonne fiabilité, ce qui est le cas des MR-73.
N’oublions pas Hitachi.
Let’s not forget that Alstom still produces many different Bombardier rail vehicles. Huge contracts didn’t just suddenly and abruptly stop production to switch to an entirely new type.
Successful product lines like Aventra, Movia, Flexity, and Innovia from Bombardier will continue to be marketed and produced under Alstom branding, with technical and generational upgrades coming from within the Alstom group.
Si j’ai bien compris, ce serait possible pour le Métro de Montréal de s’équiper de voitures Métropolis mais avec la traction pneumatique?
I actually believe this $45 million cost makes sense. I think they will analyze every single piece of the AZUR, and a major part of the study would probably be analyzing every single individual component of the train, and see if they are still in production, how much would it cost to put it back in production, or which parts could replace it. It is very likely that some parts of the AZUR are no longer manufactured or even the company who manufactured it does not exist anymore. On top of it, how much would it cost to restart the assembly of the trains. Production lines and supply chains are not a simple on and off switch, once production stops, it is very difficult and expensive to start back up again. It may be so expensive to restart production of AZUR trains, that it’s more worth it to start from a clean sheet design. It will probably also identify which are the weakest links in the train, and see how they could further optimize the design and engineering of it. The AZUR’s are not perfect either, they need to see what did not work with it, and redesign those portions.
I am guessing this study is to examine, is it possible to restart production, or a new clean sheet design needs to be done, how much would it cost either option, etc.
I would like to cite the example of the Boeing 757, which is yes a 20+ year-old design, but Boeing went through the same question and studies whether to restart production of it, or do a clean sheet design.
STM/ARTM should only ask: how much would a new AZUR cost and how much a new train model acquisition/maintenance cost. Your argument is more in line with Alstom’s activities IMO.
And why do they need a study to analyze every component of an AZUR?! They have them in operation and need to maintain them. The information should already be readily available at the snap of a finger.
It’s usually a stock-pile of parts that lasts for X number of years. It gives enough time until they run out, for the need to re-engineer compatible parts. These types of specialized parts usually break down and need replacements very rarely, which is why it is feasible to keep this said stockpile.
This is usually planned during the procurement stage of the trains.
If the only thing we have is a stockpile of parts, then we might as well start from scratch. Like mentioned previously, there’s little-to-no point in building a future 20 year-old product.
Quelle est la flexibilité du Métropolis? J’aurais cru que les spécifications hors-norme de notre métro empêcherait l’acquisition de matériel off-the-shelf.
C’est juste une marque de commerce, puis ça inclut le système de traction spécifique d’Alstom qu’on a déjà dans les MPM-10.
C’est comme les trains Pendolino, TGV M, TGV Duplex, AGV, Zefiro, etc qui font désormais partie de la gamme Avelia même s’ils n’ont parfois aucune similitude mécanique/électrique entre eux.
Quality of service should be also included. Not Only Cost IMO.
At that cost for the studies, let’s hope they will have the audacious idea of rebuilding a light-rail metro on the green line rather than our expensive rubber-tired metro.
If they’re smart, they should plan to order driverless trains in the optic that we could automate the green and orange line with this kind of timeframe, the year 2036 is pretty far away.
Could we again just not buy the generic stock pneumatic alstom metropolis INSEAD of making yet another bespoke custom thing?
If you worked in the rail industry you would know that “generic” does not exist anywhere. There are always differences. They may not be visible to the passengers but they are there.
Yes, exactly this. Send out the RFQ. Choose suppliers for a shortlist. Send out an RFP with your full list of specs and requirements. Set a deadline. Open proposals. Make a decision. That’s not $45 million.
We collectively decried a $1 million budget for a Pink Line project office. But $45 million for “studies” for a partial fleet renewal on a system that already exists, where we already know the specs, measurements, and performance requirements? C’mon, man, that’s gross.
I guess 45M$ is the inflation-adjusted rate of the Let’s talk about it later kicking-can.
The trains aren’t the problem. MPM-10 is capable of fully-driverless operation, once a CBTC system is installed on all the lines, and associated equipment added to the trains. The Thales CBTC system being added to the Blue line will be GaO4-ready, with or without PSDs.
