elantra06 Posted August 29, 2017 Share #1 Posted August 29, 2017 http://montrealgazette.com/business/local-business/bombardier-shut-out-of-n-y-subway-contract-because-of-poor-performance-report Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted August 29, 2017 Share #2 Posted August 29, 2017 Can someone fix the title to Bombardier... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielhg121 Posted August 29, 2017 Share #3 Posted August 29, 2017 Good riddance. Hopefully something happens with Bombardier because they clearly see what their attitude gets them.. Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted August 29, 2017 Share #4 Posted August 29, 2017 Good riddance. Hopefully something happens with Bombardier because they clearly see what their attitude gets them.. Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app I don't know how this helps the though. There aren't that many options. Alstom, Kawasaki... Who else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R42N Posted August 29, 2017 Share #5 Posted August 29, 2017 I don't know how this helps the though. There aren't that many options. Alstom, Kawasaki... Who else? I kind of agree with this, while it’s good to take action and all, this decision could have happened internally and not be released publicly. Now, if the MTA ever needs to go to Bombardier for anything, there will be an obvious elephant in the room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted August 29, 2017 Share #6 Posted August 29, 2017 I kind of agree with this, while it’s good to take action and all, this decision could have happened internally and not be released publicly. Now, if the MTA ever needs to go to Bombardier for anything, there will be an obvious elephant in the room. Forget about that. The does so much business that it can go back to Bombardier at some point and Bombardier will be happy to get the business. The issue here is there aren't that many other vendors, so what's to stop Alstom and Kawasaki from coming in with really high numbers for future bids? There's already enough of that going on as it is with bids from other vendors for other trades. It's no secret that we desperately need more subway cars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmallParkShuttle Posted August 29, 2017 Share #7 Posted August 29, 2017 Does this really mean that Bombadier has been blacklisted? The article mentions that their current bid was rejected, with reasons gleaned from an internal Bombadier memo. I know that agencies have a tendency to hold onto negative memories, but I'm not sure this is the case here. Has there been any representative of this from an MTA source? As for the question of collaborative contract gouging, it's plausible, but I think there should be enough managerial and political checks in place to keep Alstom and Kawasaki from running amok. Here's to hoping the powers that be are desperate, not stupid. Siemens is a possible contender, and if Bombadier regains a good track record they can be very much viable for upcoming contracts. Just not this one. Sent from my Moto G using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CenSin Posted August 29, 2017 Share #8 Posted August 29, 2017 Forget about that. The does so much business that it can go back to Bombardier at some point and Bombardier will be happy to get the business. The issue here is there aren't that many other vendors, so what's to stop Alstom and Kawasaki from coming in with really high numbers for future bids? There's already enough of that going on as it is with bids from other vendors for other trades. It's no secret that we desperately need more subway cars. The Chinese would be important agents in such a situation. The threat of the MTA considering them should alone produce lower costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted August 29, 2017 Share #9 Posted August 29, 2017 The Chinese would be important agents in such a situation. The threat of the MTA considering them should alone produce lower costs. Ugh... Don't even mention that. That's the last thing we need are Chinese made subway cars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Around the Horn Posted August 29, 2017 Share #10 Posted August 29, 2017 I kind of agree with this, while it’s good to take action and all, this decision could have happened internally and not be released publicly. Now, if the MTA ever needs to go to Bombardier for anything, there will be an obvious elephant in the room. It did happen internally. Someone on Bombardier's side of things leaked it to the Montreal press... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elantra06 Posted August 29, 2017 Author Share #11 Posted August 29, 2017 Does this really mean that Bombadier has been blacklisted? The article mentions that their current bid was rejected, with reasons gleaned from an internal Bombadier memo. I know that agencies have a tendency to hold onto negative memories, but I'm not sure this is the case here. Has there been any representative of this from an MTA source? As for the question of collaborative contract gouging, it's plausible, but I think there should be enough managerial and political checks in place to keep Alstom and Kawasaki from running amok. Here's to hoping the powers that be are desperate, not stupid. Siemens is a possible contender, and if Bombadier regains a good track record they can be very much viable for upcoming contracts. Just not this one. Sent from my Moto G using Tapatalk I don't think they are blacklisted. They just need to get their shit together. When they do them they can start bidding again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HenryB Posted August 29, 2017 Share #12 Posted August 29, 2017 Ugh... Don't even mention that. That's the last thing we need are Chinese made subway cars. I doubt CRRC will win this time, since they are partnering with Bombardier lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RES2773 Posted August 29, 2017 Share #13 Posted August 29, 2017 I'm happy they are shut out for this bid. But once they have a better record again (hopefully they will), it would be beneficial to consider. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QM1to6Ave Posted August 30, 2017 Share #14 Posted August 30, 2017 These kinds of things happen all the time in business. Give it some time and this will be a thing of the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan Railer Posted August 30, 2017 Share #15 Posted August 30, 2017 Give it to Siemens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted August 30, 2017 Share #16 Posted August 30, 2017 Give it to Siemens The same Siemens company that was sued by the for not being able to meet/fulfill contractual obligations for the bus tracking program? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Around the Horn Posted August 30, 2017 Share #17 Posted August 30, 2017 The same Siemens company that was sued by the for not being able to meet/fulfill contractual obligations for the bus tracking program? Bus tracking and railcars are two completely different things. Look at their current track record: ACS-64s for Amtrak and SEPTA (under construction), Chargers for Amtrak Midwest and Amtrak California, the new trains for Brightline, their countless light rail vehicles, etc etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted August 30, 2017 Share #18 Posted August 30, 2017 Bus tracking and railcars are two completely different things. Look at their current track record: ACS-64s for Amtrak and SEPTA (under construction), Chargers for Amtrak Midwest and Amtrak California, the new trains for Brightline, their countless light rail vehicles, etc etc... Just saying. The sued them and won for breach of contract, so if they're in the game, I'm assuming the wiill have vetted them heavily for such an opportunity. Amtrak is Amtrak and SEPTA is SEPTA, but it's not the . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jersey Loop Posted August 30, 2017 Share #19 Posted August 30, 2017 I doubt CRRC will win this time, since they are partnering with Bombardier lol We definitely haven't seen the last of CRRC, though. They are aggressively entering the North American market with all the Boston cars as well as multilevels for both Philadelphia and Montreal, and the Chinese government is continuing to subsidize them so they can underbid competitors. I'm in agreement that Siemens should consider a bid, and the MTA should give them due consideration. Even if Alstom or Kawasaki win in the end based on track record, it might keep numbers in check. Plus, we have to consider the possibility that with such a massive order for the R211, it might be split into between two companies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T to Dyre Avenue Posted August 30, 2017 Share #20 Posted August 30, 2017 What about CAF? They too, already have a facility in New York State - in Elmira. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan Railer Posted August 31, 2017 Share #21 Posted August 31, 2017 What about CAF? They too, already have a facility in New York State - in Elmira.LMFAO CAF is a joke. Do you even know how late the Viewliner II contract is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T to Dyre Avenue Posted August 31, 2017 Share #22 Posted August 31, 2017 LMFAO CAF is a joke. Do you even know how late the Viewliner II contract is?Yes, I do. So "one strike and you're out" should be the MTA's policy? I guess that means Bombardier never should've been allowed to build another subway or commuter rail car for the MTA after they finished delivery of the R62As, then. In fact, the MTA seriously considered trying to get out of the contract because they were late too many times and the cars had various mechanical problems. NYCsubway.org has a very good piece about the R62A troubles in their early years. Every rail car maker has had at least one late order. You don't automatically disqualify them just because they had one late order for another transit agency or railroad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CenSin Posted August 31, 2017 Share #23 Posted August 31, 2017 Yes, I do. So "one strike and you're out" should be the MTA's policy? I guess that means Bombardier never should've been allowed to build another subway or commuter rail car for the MTA after they finished delivery of the R62As, then. In fact, the MTA seriously considered trying to get out of the contract because they were late too many times and the cars had various mechanical problems. NYCsubway.org has a very good piece about the R62A troubles in their early years. Every rail car maker has had at least one late order. You don't automatically disqualify them just because they had one late order for another transit agency or railroad. How many outs can you call before there is nobody left to build trains for you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T to Dyre Avenue Posted August 31, 2017 Share #24 Posted August 31, 2017 How many outs can you call before there is nobody left to build trains for you? Right. CAF is indeed way behind on the Amtrak Viewliner 2 order (and, granted, that's not a very big order), but unlike Bombardier, they've never built a subway or commuter rail car for the MTA. If I remember correctly, Alstom fell behind on their portion of the R160 order early on due to quality control issues with the body shells in Brazil. Yet all signs seem to be pointing to Alstom getting at least part of the R211 order. What if the MTA disqualified Alstom on the R211 contract solely on the basis of its original faulty R160 body shells putting them behind on that contract? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.