Silver Line to Chelsea

[Joel N. Weber II]

Despite buses being off-the-shelf products, the T still needs to go through a competitive bidding process to ensure that they're getting the best value for their money. There was no guarantee that New Flyer would produce the next batch of 60-foot buses for the T. Second, the market for 60-foot buses in North America is very small, let alone 60-foot hybrids. Why would New Flyer expend so much R&D resources on a feature or product that only a handful of cities would have an interest in? If the T required a powered center axle, then the cost of each bus would have more than doubled because the T would have had to pay for R&D costs. For only 25 buses that are supposed to last only 12 years and with a feature that would be used for less than 10 days per year, that's a proposition that I, as a taxpayer, would not be happy with.

It costs as much as building 25 buses to figure out how to remount the electric motor on the center axle and fix the software to cope with that? Or it would have cost as much as building 25 buses to figure out how to add batteries to the otherwise perfectly good powertrain design that we have for the dual mode buses?

New Flyer is going to survive just fine. The 60-foot bus market is a niche; the 40-foot market is where the money is. You're complaining about a feature that would be useful for only small number of days per year and for a very small market segment.

No, I'm complaining about their ability to adopt reasonable technological improvements. If they fall behind on converting 40 foot bus production to batteries, why should we assume they won't go the way of Studebaker?

The issue isn't with battery capacity; the Allison EP50 hybrid system is designed to propel only one axle, not two.

So why not mount the electric motor on the center axle instead of the rear axle?

 

[swtat]

It costs as much as building 25 buses to figure out how to remount the electric motor on the center axle and fix the software to cope with that? Or it would have cost as much as building 25 buses to figure out how to add batteries to the otherwise perfectly good powertrain design that we have for the dual mode buses?

First, let me state that the order of DE60LFRs are options that were exercised, using ARRA funds, from ABQ RIDE's contract for the same models. It would have been impossible for the MBTA to require a powered center axle due to the terms of the contract. If the T wanted that requirement, they would have had to procure their own contract and they wouldn't have been allowed to use ARRA funds for it.

Now, the answer to your first question is it would have been impossible to do. The Allison EP50 hybrid system doesn't use electric motors. See below for an explanation. At the time, there was no other hybrid system in existence that could power a 60-foot bus. The answer to your second question is yes. New Flyer would have had to design a completely new bus specifically for the MBTA. A powered center axle and rooftop batteries aren't simple drop-in additions. Rooftop batteries are very heavy and significantly alter the vehicle's dynamics since they become more top-heavy. A powered center axle requires space for the electric motors and a differential between the two wheels. Look at how different the Neoplan DMAs are from the regular AN460LF. The front section is longer and the rear shorter. The wheels are larger. The engine bay is larger to accommodate a 500 HP engine as opposed to 330 HP for regular 60 foot buses. All of these differences result from how heavy the bus is because of the requirement of a powered center axle.

No, I'm complaining about their ability to adopt reasonable technological improvements. If they fall behind on converting 40 foot bus production to batteries, why should we assume they won't go the way of Studebaker?

The XE40 is already fully designed and ready to go. Why would they need to allocate more manufacturing capacity to that model? Where is the demand? Most bus orders nowadays are still either straight diesel or CNG.

So why not mount the electric motor on the center axle instead of the rear axle?

Because the Allison EP50 system doesn't use electric motors. There is an electromechanical transmission unit that's mounted where a B500R transmission would normally be on a straight diesel/CNG bus. This unit transmits electrical and mechanical energy to the drive axle. It is, in effect, an E-CVT (electric continuously variable transmission). It requires a mechanical connection between the engine and drive axle, which would be very difficult to do with the center axle.

 

[djohnstonb]

Anyone know if there's any planned development around each new station? I mean retail, housing, parks, etc.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Second, the market for 60-foot buses in North America is very small, let alone 60-foot hybrids. Why would New Flyer expend so much R&D resources on a feature or product that only a handful of cities would have an interest in?

Presumably the market for 60' buses is basically the biggest cites, and I'm pretty sure at least half of the 20 biggest cities listed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_primary_statistical_areas_of_the_United_States get snow, plus among that top 20 it seems that there is some correlation of the cities with better transit tending to also be the cities that get snow (I don't really think of Los Angeles or Florida or Texas or Arizona as having great transit). It's hard to respect a company that was selling 60' buses but had no interest in providing a feature that half or more of their 60' bus customers ought to have been getting. (And if we include the cities in New Flyer's home country in the mix instead of just the US, the percentage that get snow gets a little higher.) If you want to argue that 60' buses aren't worth building at all, maybe that's worth arguing, but I doubt that powering the center axle with a small electric motor once you have a battery (even just a hybrid battery) is really a huge fraction of all the things that make a 60' bus different from a 40' bus.

If the T required a powered center axle, then the cost of each bus would have more than doubled because the T would have had to pay for R&D costs. For only 25 buses that are supposed to last only 12 years and with a feature that would be used for less than 10 days per year, that's a proposition that I, as a taxpayer, would not be happy with.

I thought that normally for off the shelf products, private investors pay for the development and hope to recover that from sales to lots of customers. Proterra seems to know how to get private investment. Does New Flyer know how to line up enough investment to survive the transition to battery powered buses?

I also have to wonder if New Flyer's management might have been able to make the case internally, had they wanted to build great products several years ago, that having better 60' buses than the competition (in the sense of actually working correctly on snow) might have enabled them to win bids in cases where in some cases they might not have had to compete on price if they had better functionality, and if perhaps that might have enabled them to more than recover development costs.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

The Allison EP50 hybrid system doesn't use electric motors.

I don't see how that could possibly be factually accurate, unless you're being excessively pedantic if it turns out there is exactly one electric motor inside that hybrid unit.

New Flyer would have had to design a completely new bus specifically for the MBTA. A powered center axle and rooftop batteries aren't simple drop-in additions.

If you add center axle electric motor(s) to an existing hybrid design, the design already has the batteries, so isn't it just a question of how to get electric motor(s) installed to power the wheels on the center axle?

Electric motors of a given horsepower weigh a lot less than diesel engines of the same horsepower.

A powered center axle requires space for the electric motors and a differential between the two wheels.

It's apparently possible to order a 60' battery powered bus with in wheel motors. Apparently Tesla didn't go with in wheel motors with their cars because suspensions work better with less unsprung weight and mounting the motor at the center of the axle probably better protects it from dirt, but I bet in wheel motors are better than an unpowered center axle.

The XE40 is already fully designed and ready to go. Why would they need to allocate more manufacturing capacity to that model? Where is the demand? Most bus orders nowadays are still either straight diesel or CNG.

Is the XE40 adequately cost optimized? It looks like GM may not have cost optimized the Bolt well enough for it to make any sense for them to try to match Tesla's goal for Model 3 volume. Where's the transit agency talking about any benefits the XE40 has over Proterra products (aside from the familiarity of the New Flyer name)?

 

[swtat]

Presumably the market for 60' buses is basically the biggest cites, and I'm pretty sure at least half of the 20 biggest cities listed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_primary_statistical_areas_of_the_United_States get snow, plus among that top 20 it seems that there is some correlation of the cities with better transit tending to also be the cities that get snow (I don't really think of Los Angeles or Florida or Texas or Arizona as having great transit). It's hard to respect a company that was selling 60' buses but had no interest in providing a feature that half or more of their 60' bus customers ought to have been getting. (And if we include the cities in New Flyer's home country in the mix instead of just the US, the percentage that get snow gets a little higher.) If you want to argue that 60' buses aren't worth building at all, maybe that's worth arguing, but I doubt that powering the center axle with a small electric motor once you have a battery (even just a hybrid battery) is really a huge fraction of all the things that make a 60' bus different from a 40' bus.

Really? So what other company at the time was selling 60' buses with powered center axles? Why are you singling out New Flyer? What about NABI and NovaBUS? I'm not arguing that 60' buses aren't worth building; I'm trying to point out the fact that the market for them was extremely small in 2009 and it made no sense for New Flyer to custom design their own hybrid system for a market that was even smaller. That small electric motor may not be a large fraction of all the components, but redesigning the chassis and suspension to accommodate it is a pretty big deal.

I also have to wonder if New Flyer's management might have been able to make the case internally, had they wanted to build great products several years ago, that having better 60' buses than the competition (in the sense of actually working correctly on snow) might have enabled them to win bids in cases where in some cases they might not have had to compete on price if they had better functionality, and if perhaps that might have enabled them to more than recover development costs.

I highly doubt it. "Better" is a highly subjective term. Better in what sense? Transit authorities look for the lowest total cost of ownership when purchasing vehicles. This is the primary reason why hybrids still haven't taken over sales of straight diesel or CNG vehicles. A 60-foot hybrid bus with a powered center axle would be more than double the cost of a regular diesel. To give you an idea, each MBTA Neoplan DMA bus cost $1.6 million in 2002. That's about $2.2 million in today's dollars. Tell me how you'd be able to sell a bus that costs that much to any transit authority.

 

[swtat]

I don't see how that could possibly be factually accurate, unless you're being excessively pedantic if it turns out there is exactly one electric motor inside that hybrid unit.

I meant the hybrid system doesn't use electric motors to directly drive the wheels. There are two electric motors enclosed within the transmission unit.

If you add center axle electric motor(s) to an existing hybrid design, the design already has the batteries, so isn't it just a question of how to get electric motor(s) installed to power the wheels on the center axle?

Electric motors of a given horsepower weigh a lot less than diesel engines of the same horsepower.

Yes, but then you also need to get GM-Allison involved as you are attempting to modify their patented design. Their hybrid system is complex; they would need to modify the software and electronics to allow the center axle to work harmoniously with the electromechanically propelled (and much more powerful) rear axle. New Flyer would need to modify the chassis and suspension to accommodate the additional motors.

Is the XE40 adequately cost optimized?

My best guess would be yes. The XE40 uses the same chassis and many of the same auxiliary components as the other models in the Xcelsior line.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Really? So what other company at the time was selling 60' buses with powered center axles? Why are you singling out New Flyer? What about NABI and NovaBUS? I'm not arguing that 60' buses aren't worth building; I'm trying to point out the fact that the market for them was extremely small in 2009 and it made no sense for New Flyer to custom design their own hybrid system for a market that was even smaller. You also have to remember that motors back then weren't as small or as efficient.

If NABI and NovaBUS and New Flyer all had 60' options in 2009, why didn't any of these companies see value in investing their own money in the development of a bus that was better at snow performance than their competition in an effort to increase market share? (I'm focused on New Flyer because NABI and NovaBUS don't really seem to be relevant to the discussion of who might win an MBTA contract in 2018.)

Page 5 of http://www.allisontransmission.com/...40-50-ep1BCB31AC06C2F2B94ACCEED0.pdf?sfvrsn=4 claims the EP50's computer is designed for expansion / future technology evolution. Is there some plausible way for this marketing claim to be true at all without it being possible to get that computer to control center axle motor(s)?

I highly doubt it. "Better" is a highly subjective term. Better in what sense? Transit authorities look for the lowest total cost of ownership when purchasing vehicles. This is the primary reason why hybrids still haven't taken over sales of straight diesel or CNG vehicles. A 60-foot hybrid bus with a powered center axle would be more than double the cost of a regular diesel.

It looks like transit agencies look for the same old thing that they've always been buying when they decide what to buy, and not lowest total cost of ownership. The T's staff recommendation to keep incurring unnecessary asthma treatment costs with the next bus order didn't provide any detailed analysis saying that continuing to provoke asthma would be the lowest cost option, and Proterra's press releases claim that asthma producing buses don't save money in the total cost of ownership (probably even when you ignore the asthma treatment costs), and for an order that will probably involve something like a hundred million dollars or more it seems like publishing a detailed analysis of total cost of ownership for various options would be reasonable due diligence.

 

[swtat]

If NABI and NovaBUS and New Flyer all had 60' options in 2009, why didn't any of these companies see value in investing their own money in the development of a bus that was better at snow performance than their competition in an effort to increase market share? (I'm focused on New Flyer because NABI and NovaBUS don't really seem to be relevant to the discussion of who might win an MBTA contract in 2018.)

Like I said, the market for 60' buses was already very small. (NYC's bus fleet is over 6,000 vehicles. In 2009, they had only 630 60' buses.) They wouldn't have been able to recover the R&D costs for such a feature, let alone make a profit.

Page 5 of http://www.allisontransmission.com/...40-50-ep1BCB31AC06C2F2B94ACCEED0.pdf?sfvrsn=4 claims the EP50's computer is designed for expansion / future technology evolution. Is there some plausible way for this marketing claim to be true at all without it being possible to get that computer to control center axle motor(s)?

No idea. Allison recently introduced fully electrified accessories via a Vanner beltless alternator.

It looks like transit agencies look for the same old thing that they've always been buying when they decide what to buy, and not lowest total cost of ownership. The T's staff recommendation to keep incurring unnecessary asthma treatment costs with the next bus order didn't provide any detailed analysis saying that continuing to provoke asthma would be the lowest cost option, and Proterra's press releases claim that asthma producing buses don't save money in the total cost of ownership (probably even when you ignore the asthma treatment costs), and for an order that will probably involve something like a hundred million dollars or more it seems like publishing a detailed analysis of total cost of ownership for various options would be reasonable due diligence.

How do we know Proterra's claim of lower TCO is true? Their buses haven't been on the road long enough to prove that claim. And even if the MBTA did transition to a fully electric bus fleet, they still make up only a small fraction of vehicles that are on the road. Gasoline cars and diesel trucks do much more environmental damage than MBTA buses. MBTA buses are already cleaner than most vehicles on the road today; a fully electric fleet wouldn't do much to reduce the prevalence of asthma.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Like I said, the market for 60' buses was already very small. (NYC's bus fleet is over 6,000 vehicles. In 2009, they had only 630 60' buses.) They wouldn't have been able to recover the R&D costs for such a feature, let alone make a profit.

If that's true, then how did they ever justify the R&D costs to build their first 60' buses?

How do we know Proterra's claim of lower TCO is true? Their buses haven't been on the road long enough to prove that claim.

If the T is going to rely on that argument for justifying an order of more buses with diesel engines, they ought to present a detailed report to the public of how Worcester's Proterra buses have worked out so far, along with looking at what might plausibly happen in the optimistic case and in the pessimistic case as far as how the costs might play out as the buses age.

The Proterra bodies appear to be quite durable (and similar to what has been used for some boats for decades, so maybe data on how well similar boats have lasted might provide some clues), and I think some of the parts Proterra uses have been used on other brands of buses for many years. Maybe there are some unknowns in battery life, and if so it's probably appropriate to describe that, but the experience people have been having with Tesla batteries is that there's some loss of range the first year, and generally each subsequent year has less range loss than the first year, and my impression is that Tesla vehicles with less than 90% of their original range are quite rare (certainly vastly rarer than the one in three MBTA buses we expect to be broken during the typical weekday rush hour). The electric motors are probably cheap enough that it wouldn't matter if they only lasted three years, but they probably also will tend to last more than a decade.

And even if the MBTA did transition to a fully electric bus fleet, they still make up only a small fraction of vehicles that are on the road. Gasoline cars and diesel trucks do much more environmental damage than MBTA buses. MBTA buses are already cleaner than most vehicles on the road today; a fully electric fleet wouldn't do much to reduce the prevalence of asthma.

I bet the Tesla Semi means that by 2025 we basically won't see diesel 18 wheelers on the road, probably with exceptions like farmers who own their own older 18 wheelers that only get used for a few trips a year. (And yes, it's reasonable to expect that Tesla won't get the factory for that built until 2020 or 2021.) I also doubt that Lyft or whatever people are using instead in 2025 is going to still be burning gasoline in 2025. (I bet somewhere around 2020 or 2021 or 2022 is when taxi / ride sharing / whatever will convert to batteries. The purchase price of the base Tesla Model 3 is around the median US new car price when you ignore fuel savings, and the fuel savings ought to be best for high mileage vehicles.) If the T is planning to buy vehicles that are expected to continue running past 2030, we should be looking at what other vehicles will be on the road in 2030.

 

[Arlington]

I bet the Tesla Semi means that by 2025 we basically won't see diesel 18 wheelers on the road, probably with exceptions like farmers who own their own older 18 wheelers that only get used for a few trips a year.

I will take the "diesel still with us" side of the bet, if you're looking for about a $20 wager.

I think you underestimate the power of depreciated assets. Somebody is going to be the Northwest/Delta of the trucking world and will likely deploy an entire fleet of "paid for" diesels even if Tesla has delivered trucks that have killed the new diesels market (NW/DL have always flown old, fuel-hog DC-9 derivatives because it is hard to lose money when your vehicle is fully paid for)

 

[swtat]

If that's true, then how did they ever justify the R&D costs to build their first 60' buses?

Simple: market demand. Enough transit operators demanded a bus larger than 40' that the bus manufacturers saw a viable market for them and responded accordingly.

I bet the Tesla Semi means that by 2025 we basically won't see diesel 18 wheelers on the road, probably with exceptions like farmers who own their own older 18 wheelers that only get used for a few trips a year. (And yes, it's reasonable to expect that Tesla won't get the factory for that built until 2020 or 2021.) I also doubt that Lyft or whatever people are using instead in 2025 is going to still be burning gasoline in 2025. (I bet somewhere around 2020 or 2021 or 2022 is when taxi / ride sharing / whatever will convert to batteries. The purchase price of the base Tesla Model 3 is around the median US new car price when you ignore fuel savings, and the fuel savings ought to be best for high mileage vehicles.) If the T is planning to buy vehicles that are expected to continue running past 2030, we should be looking at what other vehicles will be on the road in 2030.

As Arlington mentioned, I think you underestimate the power of depreciation. By 2025, there most certainly will be gasoline and diesel vehicles still on the road. There will be less, for sure. I see people today driving cars that are 15+ years old. Why? Because it gets them from point A to point B and it's cheaper to use what they already have. The only way these people are going switch is if what they have becomes too expensive to maintain or if the infrastructure for petroleum disappears.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Is a 15 year old gas car in good condition all that different from a brand new gas car? Electric cars may turn out to offer some improvements that today's gas cars don't really offer over 15 year old gas cars.

A lot of gas stations are apparently operated with the gas as a loss leader to bring people into the convenience store. At what point are the convenience store operators going to decide that the people driving 15 year old cars aren't really the core market they're trying to attract? At what point will the wealthier residents of cities switch to electric cars and then prefer to see gas stations go away?

Some of the numbers for the Sun Flyer 4 airplane leave me with the impression that if they're actually achieved, for a plane flying 1000-2000 hours a year at a flight school, paying the loan interest on the electric plane might be cheaper than gas plus the engine rebuilds that might need to happen every 1-4 years.

Some of the big trucking companies apparently buy new trucks and then only keep for maybe 3 or 4 years, apparently thinking that maintaining them longer than that is too much hassle to be worth the effort.

 

[chmeeee]

I bet the Tesla Semi means that by 2025 we basically won't see diesel 18 wheelers on the road, probably with exceptions like farmers who own their own older 18 wheelers that only get used for a few trips a year. (And yes, it's reasonable to expect that Tesla won't get the factory for that built until 2020 or 2021.) I also doubt that Lyft or whatever people are using instead in 2025 is going to still be burning gasoline in 2025. (I bet somewhere around 2020 or 2021 or 2022 is when taxi / ride sharing / whatever will convert to batteries. The purchase price of the base Tesla Model 3 is around the median US new car price when you ignore fuel savings, and the fuel savings ought to be best for high mileage vehicles.) If the T is planning to buy vehicles that are expected to continue running past 2030, we should be looking at what other vehicles will be on the road in 2030.

You're out of your gourd. In 2025, the majority of the new trucks sold this year will still be on the road. None of those are electric. I don't even think we'll get to the point where the majority of new trucks are electric by 2025, never mind all of them, and DEFINITELY never mind all of them plus all old petro trucks off the road.

 

[CSTH]

Some of the big trucking companies apparently buy new trucks and then only keep for maybe 3 or 4 years, apparently thinking that maintaining them longer than that is too much hassle to be worth the effort.

Perhaps, but its not like they sell them for scrap after that. They get bought by smaller trucking companies, and then continue to be on the road for a long time.

 

[JeffDowntown]

How do we know Proterra's claim of lower TCO is true? Their buses haven't been on the road long enough to prove that claim. And even if the MBTA did transition to a fully electric bus fleet, they still make up only a small fraction of vehicles that are on the road. Gasoline cars and diesel trucks do much more environmental damage than MBTA buses. MBTA buses are already cleaner than most vehicles on the road today; a fully electric fleet wouldn't do much to reduce the prevalence of asthma.

Other vehicle sectors that have diesel, CNG and battery-electric have proven battery-electric provides the lowest TCO. I believe Protera not because they have the evidence, but because the parallel in the forklift industry has demonstrated the same claim.

 

[boston85]

If that's true, then how did they ever justify the R&D costs to build their first 60' buses?


I bet the Tesla Semi means that by 2025 we basically won't see diesel 18 wheelers on the road, probably with exceptions like farmers who own their own older 18 wheelers that only get used for a few trips a year. (And yes, it's reasonable to expect that Tesla won't get the factory for that built until 2020 or 2021.) I also doubt that Lyft or whatever people are using instead in 2025 is going to still be burning gasoline in 2025. (I bet somewhere around 2020 or 2021 or 2022 is when taxi / ride sharing / whatever will convert to batteries. The purchase price of the base Tesla Model 3 is around the median US new car price when you ignore fuel savings, and the fuel savings ought to be best for high mileage vehicles.) If the T is planning to buy vehicles that are expected to continue running past 2030, we should be looking at what other vehicles will be on the road in 2030.

Tesla Semi will turn out to be one of Elon's biggest strategic blunders. Tesla should have went full force after the port trucking, USPS/UPS/Fed Ex deliveries and other centralized operations with lower daily miles traveled. It will be many decades before Teslas replace 18 wheeler semis and others companies will get into the zero emission trucking business because Elon did not go for the easy play.

First, the cost of the supporting infrastructure will be huge. There are 3.5+ million class 8 semis in the US. If each requires a single 30 minute charge each day, then you need 75,000 charging stations running at 100% usage. I would imagine you need a multiple of that to match service levels of diesel stations. Tesla once said a supercharger cost $250K in construction costs. You are looking at $10s of billions to build out the minimum recharge optimal infrastructure. Could very well be in the $100s of billions. Yes, fuel savings may be there, but who is paying for the build out. Then you also need to throw in support infrastructure such as mechanics, and service fleets for electric semis from sea to shining sea.

Then, for long haul, 500 miles will not cut it. Truck drivers can go for 11 hours of continuous driving before required to take a break. Diesel fuel tanks can meet that range.

Last, there is a huge cobalt shortage. That needs to be engineered out or production greatly increased. Everyone points to Lithium, but the real bottle neck will be Cobalt. That is a problem across all EV markets, but if you went after a market with smaller batteries, then the problem is minimized.

Going after ports tucks and UPS delivery trucks would get rid of a lot of those hurdles. Those trucks go and come back to the same central location each day, so maintenance and charge stations could be located on site. They drive substantially less per day. It would be realistic that they could get charged during the unload/load process, so no effect on operations. Modifying each bay at a distribution center with a charger station would probably cost less than the distributive build out of the recharge stations. They would benefit more from the fuel savings, as EV efficiency is greater when starting/stopping a lot versus cruising on the highway. Ports are being pushed, especially in CA, to go to reduce emissions.

That being said, MBTA bus operations have a lot of the same characteristic of the delivery trucks and not long haul semis. I do agree that the MBTA busses should be looking at electric battery powered, but not because Tesla and the semi.

 

[djohnstonb]

Is there an official start date (not month) for this?

 

[cybah]

Is there an official start date (not month) for this?

I was tagged in a tweet this morning, it starts Sunday, April 1st. Which is also the start of Spring Schedule.

I knew something was brewing as my buddy who drives the SL says SL3 now appears as a route they can pick.

Who wants to get up at 5am on a Sunday and do a first ride with me?

--

On a related note, I think I am going to do a photo set this weekend. Probably the last photo set before it opens, unless I ask for a tour. But I fear it may be too late, as they have been doing road testing lately on the busway during the day.

 

[tysmith95]

I know this has probably already been discussed, but will this thing get stuck in eastie traffic? I know the TWT gets backed up often too.