01 September 2019

Electrification Delayed

Caltrain's electrification project is showing ominous signs of falling badly behind schedule. There are at least five bearish indicators:

Slippery milestone
Slipping Milestones. One key milestone reported in the project's monthly progress reports is known as "Electrification Substantial Completion." From the December 2018 report to the July 2019 report (over a span of 7 months), the milestone has slipped from 6/23/2021 to 12/31/2021 (a bit over 6 months). When a major milestone slips almost day for day, you know the project has gone sideways. The latest PMOC report from the FTA shows that the contractor's date for this key milestone has slipped well into 2022, over a thousand days late relative to the milestone date promised when the contract was signed.

Severely under spend plan
Significant Under-Spending. The amount of money spent to date is about $640 million less than planned at the start of the project. If the value of the work accomplished is commensurate with the amount spent, then the project is 1.5 years behind schedule. However, there are strong indications of inefficiencies (such as "differing site conditions" disrupting foundation installation) and unplanned scope (such as the new grade crossing constant warning time solution) that make it exceedingly likely that the value earned so far is less than had been planned for the amount spent. From an earned value perspective, the CPI is likely under 1 (over budget) and the SPI below 0.6 (further behind schedule than the spend curve might imply).

The little engine that couldn't
Foundation Chaos. As is plainly obvious to anyone riding the train, foundation installation is not a spatially or temporally orderly process. Digging into the ground reveals old utilities, and often reveals the recently-installed CBOSS fiber optic cables, evidently placed by the contractor where it was easiest (right where foundations need to go) with the as-built configuration either incorrectly documented or not at all. This is another CBOSS issue that could end up in court. Conflict with these cables does not bode well for PTC testing or activation, or for the cost of foundation and pole redesign and relocation. Recent indicators show a slight uptick of foundation productivity, but it still lags well below the monthly average of 174 that must now be sustained every month to complete on time. The all-time record is 122, and indications are that August 2019 totals have slid back considerably below trend.

Missing tasks are delayed and
on the critical path
Missing Schedule Tasks. By all accounts, the long pole in the tent (the critical path of the Balfour Beatty schedule) is the design, installation and testing of the signal system modifications, including the new grade crossing warning system. However, such a task is nowhere to be found in the schedule published in Appendix C of the monthly report, which obscures any insight into the true status of the project. Having recently set $150 million on fire with CBOSS, Caltrain is understandably skittish about revealing further unforeseen costs and delays associated with signalling, but it seems inexcusable at this juncture that the public master schedule would show only "OCS," "Traction Power," and "Segment Testing" tasks for the electrification contract, when all the action is in the missing task "Signal System Modifications," which is very much on the critical path in Caltrain's internal schedule and the contractor's schedule.

Proliferation of Schedules. There is apparently no agreement between Caltrain and their contractor on what the real program schedule is. The public schedule in the monthly report is served with a cautionary statement that Balfour Beatty is reporting a significant delay, but the completion milestone is still optimistically set to 12/31/2021. When you end up with several schedules, there is effectively no longer a project schedule. It's anyone's guess when the project will be done, and chances are increasing rapidly that it won't be in 2022, despite Caltrain's increasingly desperate insistence that everything is fine.

Right now would be a good time to come clean about what's really going on. Total transparency is the only saving grace that can spare Caltrain from accusations of project management incompetence.

43 comments:

  1. @Clem, can you explain why signal modifications are necessary for electrification? It seems like required stopping distances etc. would be the same as the existing diesel infrastructure. I know there is a parallel PTC effort, but I thought that was a separate project,

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @jpk122s: dunno about the signals, but if they’re like the constant warning time (CWT) grade crossing circuits/equipment, they’re incompatible with 25kVAC electrification.

      If anyone knows how the proposed so-called “dual speed check” solution (referenced in the PMOC report) to the CWT problem works, a lot of us would probably love to hear about that. And if it’s an FRA/CPUC/UP-acceptable solution here, then why wasn’t it used in Denver to avoid their years-long CWT fiasco with 25kVAC electrification?

      Delete
    2. Thanks @RealityCheck. From what you say I’m guessing the existing solutions rely on trains and rails forming part of signalling circuits. Makes sense that electrification would need a change, but I am musitified as to how this isn’t solved problem already, Bases on the Denver experience this would seem to be a regularity issue

      Delete
  2. "The Electrification contractor has been reporting a delay to its substantial completion date for many months based on its alleged inability to begin work on the grade crossing warning system as planned in its baseline schedule. The delay has been day-for-day. The contractor submitted a delay claim on behalf of its signals’ subcontractor; the material submitted stated in part “[a]t this juncture MRS estimates that the cost associated with this issue, to include but not limited to, indirect cost, direct cost, materials, escalation, contingency, risk, and delays is $76,223,166. 64, which includes 1,092 days in delay costs associated with the project duration being extended.” Shortly thereafter, the Electrification contractor submitted its TIA for the delays associated with the CWT issue. The transmittal letter for
    the TIA presented a Change Order Cost Proposal in the amount of $239,550,209.54 consisting of $71,882,763.92 in Direct Costs and $167,667,445.62 in Delay Costs. The time impact presented in the letter is 1,092 calendar days, made up of 224 calendar days associated with Change Order No. 41 (the 5 MPH Solution) and 868 calendar days to perform the added scope or work."

    "The PMOC remains concerned that the JPB does not have sufficient scheduling resources to review and analyze the contractor’s most recent TIA and the associated claim while providing timely support to other project management activities."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The JPB now expects to re-baseline its Capital Cost Estimate in mid-2019 after it assesses the cost impact of the current delays to the Electrification contract, following the completion of the necessary TIAs, and completes its Monte Carlo risk assessment update to inform the contingency requirements."

      Delete
  3. This doesn't bode well for the Hillsdale station closure...a very important station in the line. They say 6 months, but will likely be much, much more.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think the duration of the Hillsdale closure will be affected by delays. Its timing might be. Am told a bunch of foundations there are already completed.

      Delete
  4. "The JPB has procured an additional 37 EMUs from Stadler; this will result in an initial electrified fleet of nineteen (19) seven car trains. This action will delay the delivery of the first complete trainset to the JPB until early 2020 because of the time required to produce and introduce the new seventh car into the first train set."

    "The JPB is moving forward with a change in performance requirements for train sets 2-19. This change will reduce the 110-mph testing requirement to 90-mph for all but the first EMU trainset."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There were of course shenanigans in claiming the EMU option order delayed the schedule. The order may have increase by 37 cars, but if you look closely at the Appendix C schedule, the scheduling basis went from 16 x 6-car trainsets to 14 x 7-car trainsets, or from 96 cars to 98... that's plus two, not plus-37.

      Of course this is mostly irrelevant, since the critical path through train manufacturing and testing will soon be a distant memory as the real status of the project becomes reflected in the schedule.

      Delete
  5. I have the feeling that Caltrain is just aiming to have their test track/usable segment completed in time for their first deliveries and that the "real" schedule is whenever the final car delivery is. Operationally it would allow them to train the maximum amount of people (during the night, I guess..) in the shortest amount of time so the actual conversion happens quickly once the full track is built. It also lets them easily gloss over construction delays, since they can claim they're doing extended integration testing/training. Caltrain can probably get away with pushing back the actual opening day until wires are down to Gilroy, which would give them an extra 36-48 months.

    Of course, this is would also be a silly way of doing things unless Caltrain knew from the start they were going to have a lot of construction delays. This is where the "transparency" matters most, I think.

    It could also be that they are holding work back deliberately in an attempt to drum up support for their ballot measure next year. But this would imply some sort of conspiracy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The JPB’s recent decision to use the USDOT’s test track in Pueblo, Colorado, to test and accept the first EMUs is a positive action which avoids the anticipated delay in completion of the JPB’s own test track. The PMOC notes that the Pueblo facility also contains facilities suitable for demonstrating the EMU’s contractually required 110 mph capability. The PMOC’s opinion is that demonstrating the EMU’s high-speed capability on Caltrain’s current Segment 4 tracks would require some upgrades to the track system and associated regulatory approvals."

      Delete
    2. "The contact wire height is currently set at a 22 feet, 6 inches"
      https://aar.com/tracks.php

      Delete
  6. @aarond, you realize that Caltrain staff is putting electrification to Gilroy in the $2-$3 billion range? (More than the current electrification and new train fleet!) Why? UP has been unalterably opposed to wires over its tracks. The single-track line to Gilroy is UP's. So Caltrain and HSRA say electrifying to Gilroy means acquiring additional ROW for constructing TWO new additional electrified tracks (and rebuilding stations) from SJ to Gilroy parallel to UP's existing track. But this still involves ongoing uncertain negotiations with UP for some sort of agreement(s) and obtaining funding that neither Caltrain or HSRA has. And community input on alignment alternatives, property acquisitions / possible eminent domain, environmental clearances, and all the various usual unforeseen delays, etc., etc. So, apart from speculative secret strategies (3-dimensional political support-building chess masters!), how/where do you come up with a mere extra 36-48 months for "wires down to Gilroy"?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. More delays now = greater ability to hide other delays later. At least, assuming a consistent construction rate. I come up with 4 years because that's probably the amount of extra time needed to do wires to Gilory, by 2026 or 2027. CHSRA would have to make it down there by that time in order to have the IOS setup, so they'd be the ones building that part and hiding Caltrain's errors in adhering to their own schedule.

      Delete
  7. Happy Labor Day!!!
    https://goldrushcam.com/sierrasuntimes/index.php/news/local-news/19978-california-high-speed-rail-authority-says-high-speed-rail-celebrates-creating-3-000-construction-jobs

    ReplyDelete
  8. A reminder, when looking at the dismal (predictably dismal, because this is Caltrain and Caltrain contractors we're talking about) foundation progress graph, is that this project is installing hundreds too many foundations, due to pulled-from-a-consultants-own-rear-end "specifications", and that the each foundation is specified likewise to be massively oversized (and yes, other places have earthquakes, as well as ice, and wind, and more.)

    Three months of juicy delicious contractor labor time (and concrete, and steel) right there, more likely over half a year.

    Unique Local Conditions are the gift that keep on giving.
    CBOSS isn't an outlier fiasco -- it's these people's business paradigm and ideal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The org chart is in Appendix D on page 46:
      http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/Caltrain+Modernization+Program/Documents/PMOC+Reports/2019-06+June+PCEP+PMOC+Quarterly+Monitoring+Report+June+2019.pdf

      Delete
    2. Programming note. I'm not too keen on ad hominem invective directed at specific individuals, and I will usually delete such.

      Delete
  9. Something interesting happened: ACE and VL want a double track Altamont Tunnel, using the SP ROW. Also (apparently) Caltrain-style EMU bilvels. Stockton Flyover in the east, ACE to Taimen in the west (with total PTC integration).

    https://www.modbee.com/news/local/article233326662.html

    http://www.ttownmedia.com/tracy_press/our_town/altamont-corridor-vision-aims-for-dual-tracks-over-the-altamont/article_4f21681e-bfae-11e9-b6c6-378fe9ce3c48.html

    https://acerail.com/wp-content/uploads/ACV_Booklet_07-10-2019-V2.pdf

    https://acerail.com/wp-content/uploads/Work-Program-20192020.FINAL_-1.pdf

    Things are moving at a pretty aggressive pace, at least for now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The plan is great, and good to see them untangle themselves from the slow UPRR ROW segments.

      Piggybacking on Caltrain rolling stock order is also admire-able.

      Delete
    2. Some pretty strong language in the Executive Director's introduction to the ACE 2019-2020 Work Plan (page 5).

      "The Altamont corridor has double the amount of vehicle traffic heading to the Bay Area than from Sacramento and the Monterey Bay Area, with projections expected to increase sharply. A strong alternative will be needed to relieve congestion and connect the San Joaquin Valley to the Bay Area."

      I think that's what is called a shot across the bow.

      Delete
    3. They conveniently "forgot" about Hollister (12K) and Gilroy (15K) in each direction every working day...

      Delete
    4. Census data clearly indicates that southern Santa Clara County (Morgan Hill, Gilroy, Hollister, etc.) does not have the population or jobs density to justify large capital investments in the rail corridor. By all means extend frequent electrified service to Blossom Hill, but not an inch further, until after a hypothetical Pacheco HSR tunnel is built.

      Delete
    5. Census data within 2 miles of a Caltrain station is beyond useless in South Santa Clara County (zero density). Please take a look at Caltrans traffic counts at freeway intersections within 5 miles of a Caltrain station and reconsider.

      Delete
    6. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    7. The authorities schedule has the SF-SJ EIR ready about 4 months after the tunnel EIR (Dec 2020). By mid 2021 they'll have to raid the tax surplus fund otherwise the system becomes a glorified San Joaquins line for ad infinitum.

      "1 San Francisco to San Jose Schedule updated to reflect incorporation of additional materials to achieve ROD in April 2021.

      2 San Jose to Merced Schedule updated to reflect incorporation of additional materials and respond to administrative draft review comments to achieve ROD in December 2020."

      EIR Schedule: Page 38


      Delete
    8. From Caltrans, 2016 Counts, 2 way totals:

      101@ San Martin: 247k
      101@ 85 (South San Jose): 270k
      101@ 130 (Alum Rock): 376k
      101@ Kehoe (San Mateo): 532k

      580@ Grant Line Road (East side of Altamont): 311k
      580 @ Hopyard (just east of 680): 463k

      Delete
    9. @Martin

      I read it as a future tax deal, similar to how Valley Link & Valley Rail got funded for an SB-1 vote. Especially with the mentions of the Dumbarton Corridor. Caltrain wants to go east and ACE wants to go west, there's something that can be built here.

      Only problem is that ACE wants to go under wire, but VL's corridor doesn't allow it due to the ten or so overpasses. This will have to be figured out at some point. Maybe some NJT-style dual modes on the horizon? NJT's MultiLevels would fit under a low wire, although locomotive pantographs would have to retract up/down when entering/leaving the VL corridor.

      And adjacent to all this is a usable 680 rail trail and eBART. This has to be on their radars somewhere, too.

      Delete
  10. https://www.valleylinkrail.com/upcoming-meeting-materials
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQZu2dioe-g

    ReplyDelete
  11. Clem:
    Where are the statistics and figures coming from? Is this from the leaked PMOC report? The statements you make about the reasons for the delay are not in line with the comments provided by JPB/Caltrain in the SF Examiner article from May, 2019. The examiner published comments alluding to the fact that the delays are a result of Contractor issues. Your blog identifies things like "unforeseen conditions" and poorly as-built utilities as the reason for Foundation Delays. Is there publicly available information that you are citing here? If so, where is it published? If this information is coming from a source, can you name the source or at least the agency so we can get a sense of bias?

    https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/federal-monitor-warns-caltrain-electrification-project-faces-two-year-delay/

    Interested riders and Tax Payers should have some transparency about who is saying what and whether or not this $1,000M issue will end up in court costing the State/Fed even more money.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The PMOC report was not "leaked". It was published on Caltrain's website. The PMOC for any particular project is probably the least biased source you can find.

      Here is part of what the PMOC report said about conflicts between the foundations and CBOSS fiberoptic:

      "PMOC Recommendation: The JPB states that it is tracking and segregating the extra costs incurred to relocate foundations or otherwise avoid or relocate the fiber optic cable installed by the CBOSS-PTC contractor. The PMOC notes that this information is being captured in the Change Order logs being maintained by the JPB and reviewed by the CMB. The JPB should produce a report documenting the sources of funds used for the original installation of the CBOSS-PTC cabling, and documenting the costs incurred to date by the PCEP as described above. The report should also document any specifications or other technical direction previously given to the CBOSS-PTC contractor that required that the contractor avoid the areas and locations where the interferences have, or in the future occur. The JPB should consider initiating a back charge or other action to recover its extra costs as additional information PCEP Quarterly Monitoring Report – June 2019 Page 10 is gathered. The PMOC notes that the FTA will not participate in costs associated with remediating the CBOSS-PTC fiber optic conflicts."

      Delete
  12. http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/Caltrain+Modernization+Program/Documents/PMOC+Reports/2019-06+June+PCEP+PMOC+Quarterly+Monitoring+Report+June+2019.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  13. On "Foundation Chaos", I had noticed the non-sequential pattern of foundation construction too and was puzzled. There might be a method in the madness. Perhaps they are trying to sample a diversity of sites so if any blocking conditions are uncovered they can get the engineers involved early for redesigns and workarounds in parallel with completing the construction of the non-problematic sites.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Replies
    1. From looking at the 9 month change for 2019, it doesn't appear to look too bad. CP1 has gone up only 5 parcels but still managed to cut down required by 3%.
      CP2-3 actually went down in required parcels by 16. CP4 has jumped quite a bit.

      CP1 January 888 required, 89% delivered
      Sept 893 required, 92%

      CP2-3
      January 772 required 59% delivered
      Sept 756 required 71%

      CP4
      January 178 required 80% delivered
      Sept 210 required 79%

      Delete
    2. https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2019/07/emergency-exit-fail.html?showComment=1564790925385#c664763767544357224

      Delete
  15. Clem, any chance you can create a CAHSR site? These other sites are so anti-electrification or anti-HSR it really isn't much fun or interesting to blog in. Ever since Cruickshank went dormant there has been a big void left behind.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that there isn't a good place to discuss HSR anymore. Unfortunately I am too busy to take a wider scope of blogging and discussion at the moment. Why not take up the mantle yourself? Blogspot or wordpress are free.

      Delete
    2. Yea, maybe. I don't know if I'm thick skinned enough like Cruickshank was, he sure took some beatings. It would definitely have to be a different format, maybe a guess writer each post. If I survive Machu Picchu I'll give it some more thought. Peru has got some incredible Slow Speed Rail (SSR) rides so I'll have a lot to soak up over the next month or two.

      Delete
  16. Having read the latest progress report, it sounds like the critical path is now the rolling stock. But looking at how much progress they have been making (or not) with installing the poles, I don't see how they have the wires up in time to run the trains even when they do arrive. And unlike Amtrak in 2000, they won't be able to get away with having wires on only one track for half the route.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The stated critical path is kind of a joke, despite Stadler apparently having some real ramp issues. Caltrain recently had their big schedule workshop with FTA but the outcome of that is yet to be fully reflected in the monthly reports. When it is, there will be a big slip; until then, their Ministry of Truth will insist (as they do) that everything is still on pace.

      Note the FTA PMOC report (not produced by the Ministry and posted only with external prodding) is served on their website with a long disclaimer from the Ministry. That disclaimer says so much more about them than they realize.

      Delete
    2. When will the Ministry of Truth post the September PMOC report HERE: http://www.caltrain.com/projectsplans/CaltrainModernization/CalMod_Document_Library.html
      including "JPB to provide an assessment of how much of the previously purchased and/or installed CBOSS-PTC equipment is still considered useful with the Wabtec system." and preferably with something better than "Reset the due date for Action Item 8.08 to April 17, 2019."

      Delete
    3. Looks like the latest PCEP progress report is up and Caltrain is looking to extend the FFGA RSD due to COVID travel restrictions impacting the EMU testing schedule. Report here

      Delete