[TOareaFan]

Sometimes you have to take a big hit in order to break a bad deal. Better that than to throw more good money after bad.

In any future ML contract, whomever is the supplier, the termination clauses and late penalties had better be solidly on the customer's side.

The thing about contracts is that both parties have to sign them for them to have any meaning whatsoever. You may have a problem finding vendors willing to sign such contracts...or if they do, you may just see the cost per vehicle and the delivery schedule itself padded for comfort.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The thing about contracts is that both parties have to sign them for them to have any meaning whatsoever. You may have a problem finding vendors willing to sign such contracts...or if they do, you may just see the cost per vehicle and the delivery schedule itself padded for comfort.

It's a fair point. Outside of Siemens, Alstom and Bombardier, there's not much else to choose from.

http://www.railwaydirectory.net/suppliers/id/28

 

[TOareaFan]

It's a fair point. Outside of Siemens, Alstom and Bombardier, there's not much else to choose from.

http://www.railwaydirectory.net/suppliers/id/28

I have been very critical of ML for some/all of their contract negotiations (either vehicle purchases or corridor/track purchases or others) but as someone who does a fair bit of negotiating in my line of work.....I have to acknowledge that you often have to make trade offs inside the negotiations....so, in this case, what was the primary objective? Likely to get a lot of cars, ordered and started and at as low a price as possible....tied to that, likely under some political pressure to have a job creation impact as well....in light of that, getting heavy handed on things like late penalties and cancellation clauses could have put the primary objective in jeopardy....so you soften on that and you get the best price with the tightest delivery schedule that gets the line opened........it would be (I think) hard to be really firm on late fees/penalties and meet those objectives and in the moment it might have been an admission that, really, the schedule is, perhaps, not doable in the first place.

 

[drum118]

It's a fair point. Outside of Siemens, Alstom and Bombardier, there's not much else to choose from.

http://www.railwaydirectory.net/suppliers/id/28

Sure there is. You have CAF, Stadler, Soaka, CRRA. There are a few more. CAF has the longest car on the market at 59m in Budapest and it beats the Siemens 56m that I have been on. Still prefer the Stadler car.

CRRA is a merger of 2 companies and hungry for work who will undercut to get their foot in the door like a number of companies off shore have done so far. They have setup 2 plants in the US for the subway car orders, but the shells are coming in from China. Its is also a reason why the merger between BBD and Siemens could happen regardless of the cash flow for BBD.

Siemens has the lion share of work for cars in the US today with over 500 on order now.

 

[44 North]

I wonder how easy it would be for the LRT projects in Ontario to switch to high-floor/high-platform LRVs. I guess with required street-to-platform ramps for in median stops it might be too difficult to make the change, but it would certainly open up the opportunity for more vehicle options if LRT lines could be easily switched. I'm of the opinion that SELRT and Line 3 upgrade should've always been high-floor.

 

[W. K. Lis]

I wonder how easy it would be for the LRT projects in Ontario to switch to high-floor/high-platform LRVs. I guess with required street-to-platform ramps for in median stops it might be too difficult to make the change, but it would certainly open up the opportunity for more vehicle options if LRT lines could be easily switched. I'm of the opinion that SELRT and Line 3 upgrade should've always been high-floor.

By these days, most if not all LRV manufacturers can or will make low-floor LRVs. The high-floor vehicles have become "legacy" vehicles for those networks with high-platforms.

 

[drum118]

I wonder how easy it would be for the LRT projects in Ontario to switch to high-floor/high-platform LRVs. I guess with required street-to-platform ramps for in median stops it might be too difficult to make the change, but it would certainly open up the opportunity for more vehicle options if LRT lines could be easily switched. I'm of the opinion that SELRT and Line 3 upgrade should've always been high-floor.

How far will the platform have to be from the street crossing to have the ramp comply with ODA standards? It cost more to build high-floor platforms than low.

LA high-floor platforms require 59' of ramp.

 

[crs1026]

....so, in this case, what was the primary objective? Likely to get a lot of cars, ordered and started and at as low a price as possible....tied to that, likely under some political pressure to have a job creation impact as well....in light of that, getting heavy handed on things like late penalties and cancellation clauses could have put the primary objective in jeopardy....so you soften on that and you get the best price with the tightest delivery schedule that gets the line opened........it would be (I think) hard to be really firm on late fees/penalties and meet those objectives and in the moment it might have been an admission that, really, the schedule is, perhaps, not doable in the first place.

You also have to enforce the contract from the moment of signing in a way that keeps both parties adhering to it. From the reports of the injunction hearing, it did sound like ML initiated its share of change orders yet didn't keep very good written records of agreed revisions to schedule. Nor did they have proper (minuted) discussion about what the impact of a change order would be on cost and schedule before these were agreed to. That's a recipe for vendor complacency. "Sure, we can do that....."

It sounds like it's a case where both parties have made some fundamental errors (I don't like hearing that the Owner's Engineer was also mandated to act as an impartial third party. Perhaps that's how it's commonly done, but to this outsider that sounds like a recipe for conflict of interest. And, the supposed testing process whereby the cars are delivered undriveable with the software delivered later sure sounds like a "Hail Mary" ploy on Bombardier's part ) and their lawyers' strategy is to maximise the other party's errors, and minimise their own.....good courtroom strategy, but not good problemsolving, and clearly past the point where someone could pull win-win out of this.

- Paul

 

[nfitz]

The Valley Line is operationally incompatable with the Metro and Capital Lines as much as the IRT (numbered subway routes) and IND/BMT (lettered subway routes) are within the New York Subway. They will connect, but not interconnect; it will have its own storage maintenance facility, and I don't think they will even have connecting tracks.

Good grief ...

That seems kind of limiting. Though I'm a bit puzzled on how the Capital and Metro Lines will interline with the proposed Festival Line then. Though looking at a more detailed map - separate parallel tracks?

I'm surprised they would simply keep it all together, to help future-proof it.

 

[ShonTron]

High-floor LRTs are superior to low-floor LRTs: there's so much wasted space on low-floor transit vehicles because of the trucks; level boarding doesn't require ramps for passengers using wheeled mobility devices; they can load faster. But low-floor systems are cheaper to build, especially on-street sections where stations are simpler. They are more compatible with street-running operations.

 

[drum118]

Here they come

CRRC to build plant in Canada

CRRC Corporation announced on May 5 that it is planning to build a plant in eastern Canada to manufacture freight wagons and components as it seeks to expand its presence in the North American rolling stock market.

The plant at Moncton in New Brunswick is a joint initiative between CRRC Meishan and local partner ARS Canada Rolling Stock.

CRRC says the new facility will create more than 200 jobs in the first phase of the project.

As well as manufacturing freight wagons for a variety of uses, the new company will carry out research and development work for freight vehicles for the North American market. CRRC says it also aims to provide aftersales services to customers in Canada.
http://www.railjournal.com/index.php/north-america/crrc-to-build-plant-in-canada.html

As a note, they plan on having 400km trains in operation by 2020 and we can't get 200kph yet.
China to connect regions with 400kph bullet trains by 2020

 

[Admiral Beez]

Here they come

CRRC to build plant in Canada

CRRC Corporation announced on May 5 that it is planning to build a plant in eastern Canada to manufacture freight wagons and components as it seeks to expand its presence in the North American rolling stock market.

The plant at Moncton in New Brunswick is a joint initiative between CRRC Meishan and local partner ARS Canada Rolling Stock.

CRRC says the new facility will create more than 200 jobs in the first phase of the project.

As well as manufacturing freight wagons for a variety of uses, the new company will carry out research and development work for freight vehicles for the North American market. CRRC says it also aims to provide aftersales services to customers in Canada.
http://www.railjournal.com/index.php/north-america/crrc-to-build-plant-in-canada.html

As a note, they plan on having 400km trains in operation by 2020 and we can't get 200kph yet.
China to connect regions with 400kph bullet trains by 2020

That might be a game changer if they get into LRT manufacture in North America.

As a former New Brunswicker, I have to ask Why New Brunswick though? Reminds me of Malcolm Bricklin.

 

[drum118]

That might be a game changer if they get into LRT manufacture in North America.

As a former New Brunswicker, I have to ask Why New Brunswick though? Reminds me of Malcolm Bricklin.

No idea why NB.

They have built Trams with BBD and no small company.

As I noted above, hungry for work in NA and will undercut to get their feet in the door.

 

[muller877]

No idea why NB.

They have built Trams with BBD and no small company.

As I noted above, hungry for work in NA and will undercut to get their feet in the door.

Their US plants are in Mass and in NC. So proximity is one factor. A second is that NB offers hydro rates 30% cheaper than Ontario for manufacturers (and that's before the carbon tax came in). A 3rd reason is cost of labour.

Unless my customers are mostly in in Ontario I don't know why people would come to Ontario to build a plant. And the Ontario Liberals have their head stuck in the sand not acccepting that fact...and won't change their policies to attract jobs.

 

[smallspy]

That might be a game changer if they get into LRT manufacture in North America.

As a former New Brunswicker, I have to ask Why New Brunswick though? Reminds me of Malcolm Bricklin.

The plant that they're planning on "building" is already built - it's the former IRSI facility in Moncton. And to be completely honest, there aren't too many other facilities in North America built to such a modern standard that are currently sitting idle, if any at all - that, in part with a partner willing to work with them probably help persuade them to set up there.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.