Rotem replacing Bombardier in US

It seems that the Korean company, Rotem is gaining a foothold in the U.S. commuter coach market. The company was recently awarded large contracts to produce cars for SEPTA (EMUs), and Metrolink with an option for the South Florida RTA (Tri Rail). Personally I don't trust anything produced by a Korean company, including cars. They always seem to have the lowest price, but quality suffers. This opinion of Rotem seems to be mirrored by riders of at least Metrolink and SEPTA, who seem to be unhappy with the contracts. The best way to go, in my opinion, would be Japanese, preferably Kawasaki which has an excellent track record in the United States. If not Kawasaki, then definitely Bombardier whose popular bi-level coaches have been tried and tested by more than half of the commuter rail agencies in North America. This copout to Rotem is obviously because of money. In each case Rotem was the lowest bidder, so the agencies just automatically awarded it the contract. Its is even more surprising that Metrolink and Tri-Rail, both users of Bombardier products, would turn to Rotem. I am hoping that this does not spread to other commuter rail agencies. With ridership growing higher and higher the demand for equipment follows. From what I hear Rotem has a less than spectacular track record and certainly does not seem to be the right company to fill this demand. To me its like buying a Hyundai over a Honda- the price is less, but so is the quality. So its no wonder that Hondas are best-sellers and Hyundais are not.

Thats what a bidding process has for purpose to get lowest price, it does not mean it has any quality standards attached.
As for Bombardier not getting contracts, they have more than enough work world wide, and if they started to pay attention to detail instead of some of sloppy work they had of late, they may actualy get on prefered bidder list and get other concideration.

The problem is not Korean products, I find their tooling and machinery (Daewoo and Doosan) to be extremely high quality on par with American, Japanese and German products. The problem is their subcontracting with communist China. But even US, Japanese and German companies are sub-ing work to the commies so what can you do? Pray for quality control in the parent companies to catch substandard parts. If the Koreans can compete in the commuter world, good for them. BUT, I'd rather see a US company or a foreign company based in the US get these contracts.

It seems that the Korean company, Rotem is gaining a foothold in the U.S. commuter coach market

With all due respect, I do not see how that translates to "replacing Bombardier".

Low-ball bidding happens in other countries as well. In Ireland, Rotem has delivered the 22000-class "Intercity DMU" fleet, which is undergoing testing now. Irish Rail bought these units sight-unseen; and they look like a brand-new design.

Now they're replacing Kawasaki on the MBTA:

http://mbta.com/about_the_mbta/news_eve ... nth=&year=

I don't understand why these commuter agencies purchase a foreign product (especially Korean) of unknown reliability and no track record in the US. Is it too much to spend just a little more $ and buy a higher quality (Kawasaki) product with a proven record, and will probably cost less in the long run.

MARC rail is due to place their own order for bi-levels this year and I really, really hope they choose new Kawasakis, which haved served them well since 2000, or at least the "multi-level" Bombardiers that NJT just purchased.

If I came in with the lowest bid, Vondrak Industries would be replacing Bombardier.

-otto-

You've got to understand the political/bidding process. Specifications (specs) are written by engineers, planners, and salespeople under the guidence of politicians and laws. These specs offered to those who wish to bid on the project or equipment. The bidders decide what they will ask for doing the work maybe offering changes in the specs, and give the issuing agency their proposed bid. The agency will read the bids and accept the one with the lowest price with the promise of meeting the specifications set forth. Sometime bidders do not attempt to meet the specifications making their own amendments to meet the price or to raise the price while offering some kind of alternative. The agency seeking bids does not necessarily have to accept the lowest bid, price wise, but the bid that offers them the product that most closely meets or exceeds the specs. Often times a manufacturer or engineer who helps write the bid specs will put in a a "NIGYSOB (Now I Got You Sons of B----'s), a phrase or specification of product which only they produce or is under patent or branding only to them. Others have to offer a substitute and prove that thier substitute is equal to the task; any cost difference has to be explained. If a Korean company or a Dutch or Russian meets all the specs of a contract and the price is agreeable to the agency, it is accepted. Oftentimes, when dealing with an offshore or out of state company, there will be a spec that calls for a certain amount of or a certain phase of the manufacturing process be done withing the USA or the state in which the agency making the purchase is residing. After all is said and done, new negotiations are undertaken before the final contract is signed.

henry6 wrote:he agency seeking bids does not necessarily have to accept the lowest bid, price wise, but the bid that offers them the product that most closely meets or exceeds the specs.

Okay, if its not about price how come Kawasaki was forced to sue SEPTA, who had chosen Rotem (UTS) to build the Silverliner Vs even though Kawasaki had a significantly higher technical ranking and was even preferred by SEPTA's own employees? There was obviously heavy lobbying on Rotem's part (which they admitted), but look at the build quality, technological advancement, and US history of Kawasaki that SEPTA was willing to give up, just for $14 million less (out of $236 million). Unfortunately, Rotem won again (because they lobbied again) in the re-bid.

Oh, yeah. I forgot to mention there is a lot of legal bull s--t, mumbo jumbo, positioning, etc. that gets tacked on at the end of the bid opening process which may or may not alter. It all boils down to the fact that whoever is calling for the bids may or may not accept and has to be prepared to legally defend whatever decision is made. It is the American way.

realtype wrote:

henry6 wrote:he agency seeking bids does not necessarily have to accept the lowest bid, price wise, but the bid that offers them the product that most closely meets or exceeds the specs.

Okay, if its not about price how come Kawasaki was forced to sue SEPTA, who had chosen Rotem (UTS) to build the Silverliner Vs even though Kawasaki had a significantly higher technical ranking and was even preferred by SEPTA's own employees? There was obviously heavy lobbying on Rotem's part (which they admitted), but look at the build quality, technological advancement, and US history of Kawasaki that SEPTA was willing to give up, just for $14 million less (out of $236 million). Unfortunately, Rotem won again (because they lobbied again) in the re-bid.

The original contract that was given to Rotem specified that the contractor had to have experience building for the North American market. Rotem had no such experience, so Kawasaki sued. SEPTA started over, removing said clause, and gave the contract to Rotem.
The first car has yet to be built. The first three cars will be built in Korea and the remainder assembled in Philly. I suspect the first trains would be testing now had Kawasaki been granted the original contract, which they properly won.
SEPTA's experience with Kawasaki is excellent: Broad Street Subway, and the Subway-Surface and Media/Sharon Hill trolleys, all built in 1981 and running well.

I would like to see more bidders in the process, so there is competition, so it can help get down some of the costs of Commuter Rail lines down. By the way, how are Metrolink's new Cab Cars coming, are their any photos other than a few artist sketches available?