05-13-2017, 11:01 AM
(05-13-2017, 06:52 AM)Canard Wrote:(05-12-2017, 12:25 PM)Markster Wrote: That's the beauty of building a standard LRT system (as opposed to say, skytrain). All the vehicles made by many different manufacturers are close enough to the same tolerances to make them inter-operable.
I just can't wrap my head around the fact that the 182 LRV's they have on order already from Bombardier is about 50% too many for what they actually need.... and now they've ordered another 60+. If ML can't cancel the order, and BBD pulls through, ML will have wasted close to a billion dollars on trains that will sit unused somewhere. The only plausable thing I can think they're trying to do is use this as an excuse like "Oh, well I guess we HAVE to build more LRT lines, then! Surprise, Scarborough, wouldn't make much sense to build a 1-stop subway now would it?" etc...
Metrolinx is playing this like a cheating wife who is running off with her new handsome French soccer-playing boyfriend (Alstom) while her hard-working husband (Bombardier) is pulling 60 hour work weeks. It is sickening.
I think you're letting Bombardier off far too easily in this, but feel free to correct me. From what I gather, Metrolinx is actually genuinely worried Bombardier will not meet delivery targets. Bombardier has failed miserably to deliver a working prototype, let alone shown signs it will be capable of producing all the LRVs needed on time. This whole ordeal is precipitated by Bombardier's manufacturing failures.
Now here's my view of things based on what has occurred with the injunction business. Bombardier hasn't cared to fix its issues with any haste (read: at significant cost) because it had Metrolinx between a rock and a hard place. Why? Two reasons. First, by the time Metrolinx pursued arbitration to its conclusion, Bombardier would be the only manufacturer left who could meet Metrolinx's needs within any reasonable time frame, even if it would still be late. Second, Metrolinx owes up to $500,000/day to the Crosstown consortium for every day it fails to provide them with a set of vehicles. Together, these facts mean that even if Metrolinx won arbitration because Bombardier is in fact failing to manufacture fast enough, they'd actually lose more money by having to order a new set of trains from that date. So Bombardier was sitting pretty and saw no reason to speed up its manufacturing, as that would cost it more than the penalty it owes to Metrolinx for being late.
Now, you can say that it is Metrolinx's fault for not drafting a better contract with Bombardier. And I agree. Metrolinx should have required that Bombardier pay any penalty it owed to the Crosstown consortium if it failed to deliver on time or provided a mechanism to cancel without arbitration in circumstances such as those that it now finds itself. However, to pretend Bombardier was innocent in this whole seems quite unfair. Bombardier is not meeting the contractual terms and Metrolinx (taxpayers in reality) is paying the price.
So Metrolinx is rightfully angry and it is taking action by doing a side deal with Alstom, probably half out of spite and half out of genuine concern. Is it the best course? Time will tell. Metrolinx is probably hoping through arbitration it can cut out some of the trains from its order, but who knows if that's realistic. Hopefully it is because otherwise, as others pointed out, we'll be stuck with unused trains. Either way, you can bet Metrolinx learned a valuable lesson in drafting contracts through all of this.