R179 Discussion Thread

[ttcsubwayfan]

To be fair, when did companies like ACF, Budd, and Pressed Steel ever not show a dedication to craft? (I conspicuously left St. Louis and Pullman out for a good reason).

 

To be fair, St. Louis and Pullman were pretty good manufacturers when the PCC was in production. Maybe they should've stuck to building those

[RailRunRob]

The idea that closing yourself off from the world is going to stop globalization is one of the most dangerous fallacies known to man.

Honestly, I think a lot of it comes down to fear and just not understanding how the World or one's Country works. Dangerous is the man who doesn't know that believes he does. 

To be fair, St. Louis and Pullman were pretty good manufacturers when the PCC was in production. Maybe they should've stuck to building those

Pullman made the standard.

[ttcsubwayfan]

The standard for what?

[RailRunRob]

The standard for what?

What a railcar (Coach) should be. Pullman was synonymous with luxury. maybe not so much post WWII.

Edited September 20, 2016 by RailRunRob

[ttcsubwayfan]

I see.

 

I'm not sure I agree with the post WWII comment, though - their PCCs, while not as numerous as those built by St. Louis, were still of very high quality.

[RailRunRob]

I see.

 

I'm not sure I agree with the post WWII comment, though - their PCCs, while not as numerous as those built by St. Louis, were still of very high quality.

I could be wrong the PCC's didn't come to mind or streetcars for that matter. I stand corrected. Some are still in use today correct?

[ttcsubwayfan]

In a couple of places like Boston, yes.

[xd40flatbush]

Hope the r179 sounds different from anything we already have

[bobtehpanda]

That's an incredibly defeatist attitude; this country used to be one of ingenuity and that some of you are okay with foreign companies dominating our market is troubling.  I'm sure globalization sounds like a great thing to certain people, but the stronger the unrestrained free market grows, the greater the marginalization of ordinary citizens.ve 

 

This is literally basic economics. A passenger rail rolling stock company isn't going to survive without a passenger rail rolling stock market. What good is it that we have American companies making rolling stock if they have no one to sell it to? (Unique American safety requirements means that no one outside of America, except maybe Canada buys American-style rolling stock.) It's like asking why there are no American telegraph companies anymore.

 

Let's think of an example. In the next ten years, very few railroads will need new railcars. The R68/68As will last through the 2020s; the LIRR and MNR literally just replaced their fleets; BART, MBTA, SEPTA, and DC have already issued orders for doing so. Are the American companies just supposed to twiddle their thumbs and suck the taxpayer dry until waiting around for the next round of orders?

[rbrome]

This is literally basic economics. A passenger rail rolling stock company isn't going to survive without a passenger rail rolling stock market. What good is it that we have American companies making rolling stock if they have no one to sell it to? (Unique American safety requirements means that no one outside of America, except maybe Canada buys American-style rolling stock.) It's like asking why there are no American telegraph companies anymore.

 

 

You're correct about the economies of scale. A company can't stay in business on just a few orders per decade. 

 

But if Japanese, German, and French companies can all make rolling stock to USA specs, then surely a good American company could make rolling stock to international specs. The basic technology is not different.

 

Any American company making rolling stock should have the ambition to sell overseas. Otherwise they don't really deserve to be in business at all. 

 

I'll admit it's likely to be an uphill battle without a robust domestic market for your product. 

 

Personally, I'd like to see the government invest in a major infrastructure program that includes rail, and focuses on shifting some of the military industrial complex into new civilian transportation companies. Of course it's a very different way of doing business, but in terms of workforce, skill, brainpower, and industrial capacity, I see a lot of potential in companies like Lockheed and Boeing getting into rail. 

[TeeLow]

You're correct about the economies of scale. A company can't stay in business on just a few orders per decade. 

 

But if Japanese, German, and French companies can all make rolling stock to USA specs, then surely a good American company could make rolling stock to international specs. The basic technology is not different.

 

Any American company making rolling stock should have the ambition to sell overseas. Otherwise they don't really deserve to be in business at all. 

 

I'll admit it's likely to be an uphill battle without a robust domestic market for your product. 

 

Personally, I'd like to see the government invest in a major infrastructure program that includes rail, and focuses on shifting some of the military industrial complex into new civilian transportation companies. Of course it's a very different way of doing business, but in terms of workforce, skill, brainpower, and industrial capacity, I see a lot of potential in companies like Lockheed and Boeing getting into rail. 

You have a cool way of thinking, especially with what's in bold. Of course the Repub side of congress would vote it down quick fast and in a hurry but still your proposal shows outside the box thinking and imagination. In my opinion (which is worth about 2.3 pesos on this board) it's really good.

[R10 2952]

You're correct about the economies of scale. A company can't stay in business on just a few orders per decade. 

 

But if Japanese, German, and French companies can all make rolling stock to USA specs, then surely a good American company could make rolling stock to international specs. The basic technology is not different.

 

Any American company making rolling stock should have the ambition to sell overseas. Otherwise they don't really deserve to be in business at all. 

 

I'll admit it's likely to be an uphill battle without a robust domestic market for your product. 

 

Personally, I'd like to see the government invest in a major infrastructure program that includes rail, and focuses on shifting some of the military industrial complex into new civilian transportation companies. Of course it's a very different way of doing business, but in terms of workforce, skill, brainpower, and industrial capacity, I see a lot of potential in companies like Lockheed and Boeing getting into rail.

Bingo, this is exactly what I was getting at.  As opposed to some others who, instead of coming up with meaningful solutions, would rather sell their own country down the river.

 

The idea that closing yourself off from the world is going to stop globalization is one of the most dangerous fallacies known to man.

Failing to see that globalization is a front for multinational corporations to oppress the rest of us is a far more dangerous fallacy.  The ideal situation would be a middle ground between isolationism and unrestrained free trade- nowadays, the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of deregulation.

Edited September 21, 2016 by R10 2952

[TeeLow]

Bingo, this is exactly what I was getting at.  As opposed to some others who, instead of coming up with meaningful solutions, would rather sell their own country down the river.

 

Failing to see that globalization is a front for multinational corporations to oppress the rest of us is a far more dangerous fallacy.  The ideal situation would be a middle ground between isolationism and unrestrained free trade- nowadays, the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of deregulation.

Trumping the hand that feeds him

 

Did I hear the topic calling?

[Around the Horn]

Failing to see that globalization is a front for multinational corporations to oppress the rest of us is a far more dangerous fallacy.

The actual economic numbers do not support that theory.

 

Regardless, there needs to be continuous demand in order to see an "American" railcar company, as noted by other posters. As it stands currently, I am still willing to give Kawasaki all my business, with the stipulation that it is to be almost entirely built in America (the 95/5 split Alstom is proposing for the Avelia Liberty for example or at the least a 90/10 split, where the prototype set and all relevant testing is done in Japan, but all the other cars are entirely built in America). You would get Japanese expertise and provide more manufacturing jobs for the American economy.

[rbrome]

You have a cool way of thinking, especially with what's in bold. Of course the Repub side of congress would vote it down quick fast and in a hurry but still your proposal shows outside the box thinking and imagination. In my opinion (which is worth about 2.3 pesos on this board) it's really good.

 

 

Thanks! 

 

In theory, most of congress is concerned with jobs in their districts. This idea would preserve those jobs. More cynically, they're also concerned with campaign contributions from these companies. Again, that wouldn't go away, especially since the government would still be a customer of these companies. 

 

But you're still probably right, because... I don't know... reasons. Very little that GOP politicians do makes any sense to me. 

[bobtehpanda]

Any American company making rolling stock should have the ambition to sell overseas. Otherwise they don't really deserve to be in business at all. 

 

This is a pretty accurate summary of what happened in real life, tbh.

[TeeLow]

Thanks! 

 

In theory, most of congress is concerned with jobs in their districts. This idea would preserve those jobs. More cynically, they're also concerned with campaign contributions from these companies. Again, that wouldn't go away, especially since the government would still be a customer of these companies. 

 

But you're still probably right, because... I don't know... reasons. Very little that GOP politicians do makes any sense to me. 

Congress has had multiple opportunities to pass such legislation for improving our transit infrastructure. But I guess the automobile lobbyists have too much clout, no matter how much sense it makes to do it. I believe sometime before I croak they'll have no choice. Not because it would be the sensible thing to do but because our infrastructure will be in such a sorry state of disrepair, including roads, bridges and tunnels.

[trainfan22]

If anyone is planning to go to Pikin Yard hoping to see the 179s from the public areas, don't bother, while you can see in the barn, (Saw like three sets of 46s in there getting inspected) you can't see the 179 cars, you can see the BMT D Types from the ramps though. If you want to see inside the barn you gotta go in the Linden Plaza parking lot, its on the Pikin Ave side of the yard and ROW is briefly open air between the actual yard to the tunnel that connects to the mainline.

 

 

Anyone can walk in the Linden Plaza parking lot, just don't actually try and park your car in there you'd risk getting a ticket or towed if you're not a resident I'd imagine 

[RailRunRob]

You're correct about the economies of scale. A company can't stay in business on just a few orders per decade. 

 

But if Japanese, German, and French companies can all make rolling stock to USA specs, then surely a good American company could make rolling stock to international specs. The basic technology is not different.

 

Any American company making rolling stock should have the ambition to sell overseas. Otherwise they don't really deserve to be in business at all. 

 

I'll admit it's likely to be an uphill battle without a robust domestic market for your product. 

 

Personally, I'd like to see the government invest in a major infrastructure program that includes rail, and focuses on shifting some of the military industrial complex into new civilian transportation companies. Of course it's a very different way of doing business, but in terms of workforce, skill, brainpower, and industrial capacity, I see a lot of potential in companies like Lockheed and Boeing getting into rail. 

Agreed!

[Lance]

Congress has had multiple opportunities to pass such legislation for improving our transit infrastructure. But I guess the automobile lobbyists have too much clout, no matter how much sense it makes to do it. I believe sometime before I croak they'll have no choice. Not because it would be the sensible thing to do but because our infrastructure will be in such a sorry state of disrepair, including roads, bridges and tunnels.

It's not so much as the lobbyists having more clout, but rather that this country is more car-oriented than countries in Europe and East Asia.

 

On the subject of American rail car builders having an international presence, there needs to be an incentive for a wholly American railcar builder in the first place. I know some of us like to talk about how all of our trains are now built by foreign companies like Bombardier, Kawasaki and AnsaldoBreda as opposed to the trains of yesteryear built by ACF, Budd and St. Louis Car. The problem, as mentioned previously, is that these companies either do not make passenger cars anymore, as is the case with ACF, or simply don't exist. After World War II, there was a push towards automobile and air travel over rail travel, which is why so much money was put into the Interstate Highway projects and related interests. As more people started driving places instead of taking the train, demand for new trains and locomotives shrunk and and the rail car companies had to adapt to a changing market. Companies like Budd would gradually shift away from the rail industry, while others, such as St. Louis Car, would hold on until they couldn't anymore. If there is no money in producing rail cars here in the US, why would companies sink their funds into a failing expenditure?

 

The problem is that in order to keep those older companies around, the federal government would've had to intervene and prop them up much as they did the railroads themselves in the '60s and '70s to keep them solvent. Nowadays, the only major manufacturers who could possibly expand into rail car building here in the US are the three major automotive companies and none of them really have an interest in rail industries. Until that changes, we will continue to see our trains built here in America, but under foreign companies.

[Around the Horn]

I will say that I could see GE or EMD moving from the locomotive market into the railcar market. But even that is unlikely.

[Lance]

There's more money in locomotives than in passenger rail. While not as robust as the Europeans, American freight transport by rail does make some money. Passenger rail, not so much. Remember, the Northeast Corridor is the only real market where passenger rail actually turns a profit.

Edited September 22, 2016 by Lance

[RailRunRob]

Bingo, this is exactly what I was getting at.  As opposed to some others who, instead of coming up with meaningful solutions, would rather sell their own country down the river.

 

Failing to see that globalization is a front for multinational corporations to oppress the rest of us is a far more dangerous fallacy.  The ideal situation would be a middle ground between isolationism and unrestrained free trade- nowadays, the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of deregulation.

 

Bingo, this is exactly what I was getting at.  As opposed to some others who, instead of coming up with meaningful solutions, would rather sell their own country down the river.

 

Failing to see that globalization is a front for multinational corporations to oppress the rest of us is a far more dangerous fallacy.  The ideal situation would be a middle ground between isolationism and unrestrained free trade- nowadays, the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of deregulation.

The world as we know it has always been run by corporations and the wealthy going back to advent modern economics with Adam Smith and the East India Company. Countries have no borders with profit and money. True globalization creates more wealth for the few but the US was founded on that it's a part of it's DNA. Globalization is also about allowing more people prosperity and access around the world. The more people that buy into prosperity the more people I can trade/sell to and create opportunities for. If you're so worried about your Country and globalization be the patriot take the risk and start a business create the next Budd help to give others in the US opportunity and jobs.  There really are two rule books the one you learned, Be fair, Work hard, Ethics ,Morals..blah..blah. The one everyone on top is playing by.. Use other people's money 1st, Maximize profits, Get the most for the least. The little guys is better off in numbers,connected and creating opportunities for each other. Nothing teaches you this more than when you have to go out and seek funding and asking for money.

Edited September 22, 2016 by RailRunRob

[TeeLow]

It's not so much as the lobbyists having more clout, but rather that this country is more car-oriented than countries in Europe and East Asia.

 

On the subject of American rail car builders having an international presence, there needs to be an incentive for a wholly American railcar builder in the first place. I know some of us like to talk about how all of our trains are now built by foreign companies like Bombardier, Kawasaki and AnsaldoBreda as opposed to the trains of yesteryear built by ACF, Budd and St. Louis Car. The problem, as mentioned previously, is that these companies either do not make passenger cars anymore, as is the case with ACF, or simply don't exist. After World War II, there was a push towards automobile and air travel over rail travel, which is why so much money was put into the Interstate Highway projects and related interests. As more people started driving places instead of taking the train, demand for new trains and locomotives shrunk and and the rail car companies had to adapt to a changing market. Companies like Budd would gradually shift away from the rail industry, while others, such as St. Louis Car, would hold on until they couldn't anymore. If there is no money in producing rail cars here in the US, why would companies sink their funds into a failing expenditure?

 

The problem is that in order to keep those older companies around, the federal government would've had to intervene and prop them up much as they did the railroads themselves in the '60s and '70s to keep them solvent. Nowadays, the only major manufacturers who could possibly expand into rail car building here in the US are the three major automotive companies and none of them really have an interest in rail industries. Until that changes, we will continue to see our trains built here in America, but under foreign companies.

The auto lobby spent about 1.6 billion dollars so far this year to keep their pie under the noses of Congress. In 18 years it's 40 billion. That's a significant pie factory. The Public Transportation Lobby has outspent them by about 5 billion in that same period but that includes manufacturers like American Motorcyclists Assn, Uber Tech, Recreation Vehicle Assn, American Bureau of Shipping, National Limo Assn, Taxi & Paratransit, etc.

 

Passenger rail is subsidized almost wholly by the Government and much of that goes to AmTrak at just under 2.5 billion. Look at what The Center For Public Integrity has to say about the Transportation Lobby: "America’s transportation policy is dysfunctional. It’s also nearly bankrupt. Now, as debate reaches a crescendo over a new $500 billion transportation bill, can the national interest trump hundreds of special interests? Don’t bet on it."

 

What Marla Briggs, Sr Director of External Affairs for MARTA has to say is too long to quote here but the gist of her point is the system is the middle-aged woman in needs of repairs while also needing an expanded network, which creates a unique situation in balancing capital needs and getting funding to meet those needs.

 

This basically what most mass transit agencies seem to be going through. Mass transit doesn't have its own lobby in Washington. Instead we rely on what's available in state coffers and government money for capital programs since fare collection alone just isn't enough. Some in Congress believe even those outlays are too generous and want to cut back on that!

 

What it boils down to IMO is that the Auto Lobbyists have a stadium sized sound system to drone their message while public transportation might as well hand out a pair of ear buds to members of congress who want to hear what really needs to be heard.

 

The quote from your post above in italics is basically true. I absolutely agree.

[TeeLow]

Actually, this whole read is pretty good and very interesting. Some cool strategies on how to get things done at the state level (and even in DC) are pointed out: http://www.masstransitmag.com/article/11658987/getting-better-results-for-mass-transit-lobbying