ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit

[Viewfromthe42]

So once you know that you're paying $3.3 million whether you deliver really quickly or really slowly, the latter option seems especially compelling.

[Canard]

Exactly. This is what Toronto was into several months ago with the streetcar (FLEXITY Outlook) order.

"We're gonna sue you for our full $52 million Penalty clause!"

"..ok"

"..but still hurry!"

"...no?"

[panamaniac]

Sadly we have just passed what was supposed to have been a major milestone. According to a May 2016 report that seems to reference the original "agreement" trains 2 to 14 were supposed to have been here 10-Dec-2016 which means late fees are now being applied to all 14 trains now. I think it was about a week after this report that news of the revised schedule broke setting the completion date for all 14 back 10 months to October of 2017.
 
http://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/region...pdf#page=3
 
On August 20, 2013 the Region entered into an Agreement with Bombardier Transportation Canada Inc. (“Bombardier”) for the purchase of 14 Light Rail Vehicles in connection with the Light Rail Transit Project (the “Agreement. The Agreement includes delivery of the first light rail vehicle by “no earlier than May 1, 2016 and no later than August 15, 2016” and delivery of the second to fourteenth vehicle by December 10, 2016.

Are being applied, or could be applied?

[panamaniac]

So once you know that you're paying $3.3 million whether you deliver really quickly or really slowly, the latter option seems especially compelling.

Hence my question, above.

[Canard]

Decision hasn't been made yet.

[panamaniac]

Decision hasn't been made yet.

And I imagine won't be for some time, for the obvious reason.

[Canard]

Yeah. If Bombardier knows if they try hard enough, we won't exercise the penalty clause, then that's good for everyone. We get our trains a little late, but relations stay warm and fuzzy.

If they know no matter what were going to use the full $3.3M penalty clause, then there's no incentive to hit any deadline at all. They know there's no way we'll cancel the order and delay opening 3-5 years by re-tendering.

[timc]

Does a possibility exist for further legal action beyond the penalties in the contract?

[Canard]

Not really, no.

As Tom Galloway'a said, we want trains, not discounts.

[danbrotherston]

Does a possibility exist for further legal action beyond the penalties in the contract?

Yes, really yes.

Or at least that's what the record wrote a few weeks back:

http://www.therecord.com/news-story/6981...2-million/

"The full financial implications of the delays are not yet certain. The region will pursue options to recover costs associated with the delay from Bombardier. In the contract, the provision for late trains is $1,500 per day, per train, up to a maximum of $3.3 million. The region can also seek further damages."

[tomh009]

Sadly we have just passed what was supposed to have been a major milestone. According to a May 2016 report that seems to reference the original "agreement" trains 2 to 14 were supposed to have been here 10-Dec-2016 which means late fees are now being applied to all 14 trains now. I think it was about a week after this report that news of the revised schedule broke setting the completion date for all 14 back 10 months to October of 2017.
 
http://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/region...pdf#page=3
 
On August 20, 2013 the Region entered into an Agreement with Bombardier Transportation Canada Inc. (“Bombardier”) for the purchase of 14 Light Rail Vehicles in connection with the Light Rail Transit Project (the “Agreement. The Agreement includes delivery of the first light rail vehicle by “no earlier than May 1, 2016 and no later than August 15, 2016” and delivery of the second to fourteenth vehicle by December 10, 2016.

Of course we wouldn't have been ready to receive 14 train sets last week anyway ... or the first train set in August.  Our track construction is also behind schedule, although not as much as Bombardier.

[Markster]

Of course we wouldn't have been ready to receive 14 train sets last week anyway ... or the first train set in August.  Our track construction is also behind schedule, although not as much as Bombardier.

The storage tracks at the maintenance facility looked pretty good at the Open House. I'm sure they would have been able to park them no problem.
Not to mention, if there was actual sign of receiving vehicles, I imagine that certain parts of the maintenance facility would have been higher up on the construction schedule. As it stands, there was no rush.

[tomh009]

Of course we wouldn't have been ready to receive 14 train sets last week anyway ... or the first train set in August.  Our track construction is also behind schedule, although not as much as Bombardier.

The storage tracks at the maintenance facility looked pretty good at the Open House.  I'm sure they would have been able to park them no problem.
Not to mention, if there was actual sign of receiving vehicles, I imagine that certain parts of the maintenance facility would have been higher up on the construction schedule. As it stands, there was no rush.

Maybe we could store them.  But that's pretty much all we could do with them at this point.

[Drake]

I really wonder how on earth the penalty could be so low. As others have stated, now that we have reached the maximum threshold, there is no incentive to hurry. $3.3M is small potatoes to all players and likely only fills the requirement expected by the public that there is a penalty clause.

When I read articles about how Bombardier failed to meet its contacts is signed in the UK in 2011 (and I am putting that mildly) and the fiasco going on in Toronto; this appears to be business as usual for Bombardier.

Its a feel good story that we supported a Canadian company however they seem to have no intention of reciprocating, and likes to think of themselves as an NGO that is too big to fail, just like the CBC.

I pay a lot in taxes and to see money thrown away over the course of a variety of subjects doesn't leave me with a warm fuzzy. Mismanaged companies should fail. This is the natural order of things. To perpetually prop them up causes more problems than it solves.

Can we argue about the monorail some more?

[Canard]

Of course we wouldn't have been ready to receive 14 train sets last week anyway ... or the first train set in August.  Our track construction is also behind schedule, although not as much as Bombardier.

Maybe we could store them.  But that's pretty much all we could do with them at this point.

Can you elaborate?  This is news to me.  As far as I am aware, the test track schedule was "relaxed" somewhat in light of the late train delivery - a very kind and logical decision, I think, all around. Why force GrandLinq to blow their brains out with OT to get the Test Track ready, when their worker's time would be better spent finishing up other areas, instead?

I really wonder how on earth the penalty could be so low. As others have stated, now that we have reached the maximum threshold, there is no incentive to hurry. $3.3M is small potatoes to all players and likely only fills the requirement expected by the public that there is a penalty clause.

Well, that's basically a free train...