It is being reported in both Colorado newspapers and Oregon newpapers that Colorado Railcar of Fort Lupton has ceased business with the plant closing on December 22, 2008. All employees were given notice at that time. They were the company that had been building the latest dome cars for Alaska RR and other tour operators. They also produced the DMU cars for California and more recently the new cars for Tri-Met. This is the second setback for the company in recent months as the owners of the former American European Express equipment that ceased operations earlier this year. As far as I have been able to determine there has been no Auction of this equipment that is being stored pending disposition in Napa, CA. I would imagine it will be going at fire sale rates before the storage charges mount much more. Perhaps someone who wants to indulge there ultimate dream train whim and has several million they are not doing anything with might be interested. Al - in - Stockton
At the risk of disagreeing, it sounds as though Colorado Railcar was doomed a while ago. Check out the following link:
http://www.oregonlive.com/special/index.ssf/2008/12/trimet.html
Also, there is an auction scheduled for the AEE equipment I believe and I doubt the prices will be “fire sale”. There is some premium equipment there that will see for a pretty penny.
LC
According to the article, the Oregon commuter rail agency had initially contracted to pay $4.25 million per railcar. This is silly. I know to government types it’s not real money that someone has to actually go out and earn - but $4.25 million per railcar is beyond any and all reason.
I don’t think anyone involved in this fiasco had any idea what they were doing.
Sounds like they (Trimet) fell in love with the idea of the DMUs and had to have them. It’s a shame that Rader didn’t do a better job on the business side of things. It would be great to have an actual U.S. commuter equipment manufacturer. Amazing that he could pull down $400K+ and still run a losing company…
LC
SBB (Swiss Federal Railways) is paying roughly $13 million each for 32 FLIRT EMUs from Stadler (If I have my CHF to USD about right), this is for a 4-section modern EMU. This will give SBB nearly 200 sets. Of course SBB Personenverkehr will use them more intensively than TriMet.
Colorado Railcar was waiting on money from the State of Vermont to build orders that were ahead of Vermont’s cars.
Not a good business practice to get into.
[%-)]
Bad economic times for any business, especially one that lives order to order.
Having read all of the above, it’s odd that CRC’s bi-level DMU demonstrator (White with blue lettering) was at BNSF’s 38th Street Yard on Tuesday morning, set to head south. Work will take me by there later this morning and I will be curious to see if it is still sitting there in front of the yard tower.
First Impression of the car: DMU = Crandall Cab meets Chicago Bi-Level
Here is the official word of liquidation from the Colorado Railcar site:
Yep. That pretty much says it all. Wonder what will happen to the design work and other intellectual property.
LC
Wow - that’s quite some story in the article. Those of us who have some experience in “public bidding/ contracting / procurement” are / would be - amazed, I think is fair - at how this evolved, and how deeply TriMet evidently felt it had to “get into bed” with Colorado Railcar in order to salvage its “sole-source” order and prior payments. At that point - way too late - it surely looks like it was truly a “damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t” dilemma. (Greyhounds - you may want to check out the reader comments, if you haven’t already.) More typically, the contract should have been turned over to the performance bonding company, or to another contractor - except there was neither here, not even the bonding company to advance the additional funds.
More support for doing such things in the old traditonal way only. Otherwise, if TriMet wanted this design that badly, they probably would have done better to just build them in-house with their own shop forces.
You know, for only 4 cars - couldn’t they have scrounged up 4 old Budd RDCs - even from a museum - and re-furbished and re-engined them for this service ? I can see developing and going with a new design if dozens or hundreds are needed, but not for 4. Sure, I know many of the RDCs are worn out and have various issues, but for $4 million each I think you could pretty well jack
Much has to do with original design concept and regulatory requirements. I’m doubtful it would be feasible to make an RDC to be ADA-compliant, for one. And while I’m not specifically conversant with the original design concepts and all the political deals cut to get everyone’s buy-in (federal, state, local, railroad landlord) in this case, it is typical of such commuter start-ups that the complexities of the deals between all the parties later force everyone down a defined path. Variance from that path – like choosing a different piece of equipment – usually varies enough from the original agreements between all the agencies and railroads, as well as the whole design concept – that it becomes very impractical to change course. This is why by nature I’m inherently conservative at the concept stage and like to only use technology that has been used already by a lot of other people, like, say, push-pull locomotive-hauled bilevels and CTC. It’s hard enough getting a new operation up and running, trying to do that with new technology, new vendors, and new ideas is really quite unpleasant.
The place to care about what a commuter agency is doing is when it first starts proposing an operation, which is often 10 years before the first shovel is turned. After equipment is ordered, it is far too late to change course. But unfortunately, most of the people that want to know what the agency is up to at that point are the utopians, either utopians who imagine a perfect planned kumbaya world or utopians who imagine a tax-free world. Political accommodation, pragmatism, and consensus are asphyxiated in the rarified-air unreality that results, and the agencies, God Love 'Em, are only frustrated by the total lack of meaningful direction and the cacophonic public input that they do get. As Paul points out, reading the comments to the article are enlightening – it sure points out that the segment of the public that car
With liquidation where will that put rader’s other customer at diagonal ends of the US? ie Florida’s Tri-Rail? So far they won’t answer my questions.
Still in front of the Globevillle/38th Street BNSF yard office as of 4PM 12/26
[:)]
I grew up with Budd RDCs in the 50s in Massachusetts. Some are still in service. For example, the Trinity Railway Express for Dallas/Ft. Worth uses refurbished Budd RDCs. They have wheelchair access, but I don’t know if that meets all of the ADA requirements.
Please see http://trinityrailwayexpress.org/trerollingstock.html.
A couple quotes from there:
“Each RDC has 92 passenger seats plus 4 mobility impaired areas. Wheelchair access is through a manually deployed bridgeplate from the side doors to a “high block” on the station platform. Each car is 85 feet long, 10 feet wide, and 14 feet high. Empty, each car weights 135,000 pounds. Its design speed is 85 mph, but travels at a maximum speed of 60 mph while in service. Each car has 2 doors on each side.”
“Vehicle Cost:$1.8 million each (cost includes engineering, shipment, etc.)”
[:)] [:)]
The Ontrack service in Syracuse that has now been discontinued also had wheelchair access and securement locations on their RDCs which were considerably less costly than those in Dallas as they were not completely remanufactured. I believe these were ADA compliant. There were also specialized lifts installed at platform locations.
LC
What was ADA compliant last year, or three or four years ago, is not necessarily what is ADA compliant today, or what will be compliant next year. The regulations evolve. It’s one of our joys. “Wheelchair-lift equipped” may or may not be ADA compliant under current ADA interpretation and enforcement. May not have even been compliant when installed. Check the regulations.
RWM
Ahh, how glad I am not following some laws all the time. This is why I have outside counsel…[8D]
That said, I’d rather throw out the broader question. Given the blossoming changes in our view of passenger service witnessed by the recent Amtrak funding included in the [choke][gag] “Railroad Safety Bill” and the passage of HSR funding in California and recent Congressional legislation to support new domestic passenger railcar manufacture, balanced against such events as the failure of Colorado Railcar Manufacturing, what are the thoughts and facts supporting the creation of one or more true (as opposed to those shilling for foreign companies to provide U.S. or state content requirements) U.S. railcar manufacturers?
LC
This is totally opinion … and others will differ, about which I’m happy!
I think that manufacturing of rail vehicles is a fairly horrible business to be in, and I’m glad I’m not in it. I had enough exposure to the mechanical side of railroading to come to understand that railroad locomotives and passenger vehicles are like farm animals, they have a propensity for dying. But worse than that …
-
the clients are public agencies burdened with onerous public procurement requirements
-
many clients have unique infrastructures with unique vehicle requirements requiring the manufacturer to create one-off designs
-
vehicles are a collection of complicated systems, the failure of any one of which sidelines the vehicle for repair. It’s like saying you can’t live in your house today because the back door screen fell off.
-
this creates huge warranty risk for the manufacturer. All of the vehicle systems must survive in an environment of heat, snow, salt, corrosion, stray electrical current, bumps, vibration, and abusive passengers with minimal maintenance for many years.
-
many clients have trapped themselves through the political process into vehicle requirements that are unusual and technically challenging – if not wholly impractical! – that re
Thanks to RWM for that depressingly clear explanation of the new equipment problem. Couldn’t the major commuter agencies get together and develop one or two designs for use by everyone? Since a significant source of funds for new equipment is usually federal dollars, should the feds insist on some standardization?