Light Rail Vehicles - LRT, ICTS, Monorail, and more

[zanate]

That doesn't sound very fun. although I know nothing about the stock market.

I wouldn't worry about it. It's just a bunch of people collectively deciding what a company is worth. Stock price has basically no effect on the company performance (though a low price might make it harder to raise capital through stock issuing, and possibly open up an otherwise stable company to takeover.)

[BuildingScout]

Linimo is the first urban maglev and operates in Aichi Prefecture, Japan.  It was built for Expo 2005.

I'm really puzzled by this. Isn't the main advantage of maglevs the lack of friction at high speeds? Maglevs have their space in the space of public transit solutions but urban transit doesn't seem to be it, to the best of my understanding.

Notice that this is too a vanity project, built for Expo 2005.

[MidTowner]

That doesn't sound very fun. although I know nothing about the stock market.

On some markets, a company gets delisted when your stock becomes a "penny stock," and it can be a vicious cycle since index and mutual funds divest themselves of its stock (since it's no longer listed on an exchange they track). That's not the case with the TSX, so the fact that Bombardier happens to be trading at less than a dollar is really just a headline.

[Canard]

I'm really puzzled by this. Isn't the main advantage of maglevs the lack of friction at high speeds? Maglevs have their space in the space of public transit solutions but urban transit doesn't seem to be it, to the best of my understanding.

Reduced (read: no) maintenance. The advantages of magnetic suspension are that all of the moving component maintenance of the below-floor hardware is completely eliminated. No track wear, no wheel bearings to replace, no wheels to regrind/shape, no traction motors to rewind, no gearboxes to lubricate and replace. The most complex moving part on the train is the door mechanism.

The track itself is "dumb", too - it is simply two inverted U-channels of steel and a flat aluminium reaction plate for the linear induction motor, so the track is no more complicated than a conventional railway. Sure, the levitation packs that wrap around the track have a lot of wire in the coils, but the winding is automated and no more complex than making a conventional electric motor.

Notice that this is too a vanity project, built for Expo 2005.

You use every chance you can to point out that when a project is built with good optics, it is somehow instantly disqualify from being valid. A shame, really. I feel sorry that your vision for the future is so... beige.

[Canard]

I imagine Canard will disagree with the presenter's opinion of the technology - but here's some lovely footage of the suspended monorail in Wuppertal:

https://youtu.be/F4KZLcvMQWg

Sorry Kevin - I had to - but since you posted that video, I'm going to have to post this one.  

[BuildingScout]

Notice that this is too a vanity project, built for Expo 2005.

You use every chance you can to point out that when a project is built with good optics, it is somehow instantly disqualify from being valid.  A shame, really.  I feel sorry that your vision for the future is so... beige.

You keep on misinterpreting my point. I have nothing against a sensible transit project that is also planned to be nice looking. What I'm complaining about are pretty projects that make no transit sense and end up being underutilized because of this. In fact I even mentioned ICE and TGV as projects that are quite useful and nice looking.

Vanity projects (i.e. all looks no utility) are actually quite damaging to the reputation of the technology if you think about it for a minute.  For example the Chongqing monorail which actually works in practice helps the monorail case a lot, while the dozen or so other underutilized vanity monorails severely damage it.

[ookpik]

On some markets, a company gets delisted when your stock becomes a "penny stock," and it can be a vicious cycle since index and mutual funds divest themselves of its stock (since it's no longer listed on an exchange they track). That's not the case with the TSX, so the fact that Bombardier happens to be trading at less than a dollar is really just a headline.

One notable market where this is the case is NYSE. BBD doesn't trade there because of its multi-voting class shares. (The class B shares trade over the counter.)

But even if there's no risk of delisting there's still a large stigma attached to being a "penny stock."(*) Managers of blue chip mutual funds don't want to be seen owning such "junk." That's why some companies in this situation will do a reverse-split, consolidating 10 shares into 1. A good example of that was Nortel, who was forced to do it in order to stay on the NYSE. But as we know that didn't work out so well for them.

(*) The converse is to let the stock price grow to a very large number, e.g. Google, Apple, and especially Berkshire Hathaway. It's thought that this lends an air of exclusivity and prestige to the stock because only wealthy (read: "sophisticated") investors can afford to own it in any quantity.

[MidTowner]

(*) The converse is to let the stock price grow to a very large number, e.g. Google, Apple, and especially Berkshire Hathaway. It's thought that this lends an air of exclusivity and prestige to the stock because only wealthy (read: "sophisticated") investors can afford to own it in any quantity.

I know what they're thinking when they do that, and I've read Warren and Charlie explain it in Berkshire Hathaway's case, but I wonder who accepts that logic. Apple's at $94, it's long past time for a split, might as well do a three way split. The Google case is just ridiculous.

Anyway, Bombardier could do a share consolidation. Maybe a buyback would be a good idea; I bet they actually do have some cash.

[Viewfromthe42]

(*) The converse is to let the stock price grow to a very large number, e.g. Google, Apple, and especially Berkshire Hathaway. It's thought that this lends an air of exclusivity and prestige to the stock because only wealthy (read: "sophisticated") investors can afford to own it in any quantity.

I know what they're thinking when they do that, and I've read Warren and Charlie explain it in Berkshire Hathaway's case, but I wonder who accepts that logic. Apple's at $94, it's long past time for a split, might as well do a three way split. The Google case is just ridiculous.

Anyway, Bombardier could do a share consolidation. Maybe a buyback would be a good idea; I bet they actually do have some cash.

Not just more "sophisticated" shareholders, but rises and falls don't track perfectly according to overall value (e.g. if shares are at $600 and fall by $60, it's unlikely that had they been at $60, the fall would only be by $6, it would likely be by something more, and thus the percentage decline would be greater, and the lower overall price could make movement and momentum more likely). The shareholders are also much fewer in number, and thus fewer voices to be unhappy, fewer voices to cater to, and less ability for outsiders to gain a significant foothold in order to shake things up.

[ookpik]

Apple's at $94, it's long past time for a split, might as well do a three way split...
Anyway, Bombardier could do a share consolidation. Maybe a buyback would be a good idea; I bet they actually do have some cash.

I don't follow Apple so I didn't realize their shares broke through $100--and not in a good way.  I missed the stock split for the same reason.

As for a BBD buyback, that really wouldn't accomplish much. Control would remain with the class-A shares in any case. Yes they have the money but it would be wasted on a buyback when they need it to get the C-series fleet in the air. And what they need even more is a huge rise in oil prices to give airlines a reason (fuel economy) to buy into that fleet.

[timc]

I know what they're thinking when they do that, and I've read Warren and Charlie explain it in Berkshire Hathaway's case, but I wonder who accepts that logic. Apple's at $94, it's long past time for a split, might as well do a three way split. The Google case is just ridiculous.

Anyway, Bombardier could do a share consolidation. Maybe a buyback would be a good idea; I bet they actually do have some cash.

AAPL split 7:1 in 2014 to arrive around the price where it is today. Why would they split further?

[Canard]

[jordan2423]

Why isn't WR going with the 100% caternary free operation?

[ijmorlan]

Why isn't WR going with the 100% caternary free operation?

Because it’s fantastically expensive, and wires just aren’t that bad.

If you don’t like the look of wires, agitate for burial of non-catenary wires. It’s a way more cost-effective way to reduce visual clutter.

[KevinL]

Also, there's no one catenary-free standard for LRT just now. That would mean buying something proprietary. Catenary helps keep us with 'off-the-shelf', interchangeable technology, which is FAR cheaper.