Hyundai Rotem is pulling its last office staffers from its 10-year-old, 300,000-square-foot factory on Weccacoe Avenue in South Philadelphia and vacating the premises, said Lois Kang, aide to Philadelphia City Councilman David Oh.
“We did a lot of work trying to keep the company here,” Kang said. At its height, the plant — just south of Snyder Avenue between I-95 and the Delaware River — employed 300 workers, though by 2016 it had “reduced significantly.” It will close for good at the end of August.
The factory built 120 Silverliner V commuter cars for SEPTA, starting in 2009, and finished a couple of later car-refurbishing contracts for the transit agency by 2016, Kang said. It was that summer that the wide-windowed cars had to be returned for welding repairs, leading to months of train schedule cuts and overcrowding. SEPTA and Hyundai Rotem blamed the problem on a Pittsburgh-area welding subcontractor; Korean-owned Hyundai Rotem paid to rent substitute cars while the Silverliners were fixed.
Hyundai Rotem also built rail cars for Denver. The company had hoped to win another SEPTA contract to build two-level cars like those NJ Transit uses on its Trenton-New York line. But SEPTA’s board, led by Chairman Pasquale T. “Pat” Deon Sr. of Bucks County, gave the $137.5 million new-car contract to a company owned by China’s government, CRRC Corp., which last year built a plant in Springfield, Mass., to build trolleys for Boston and cars for Philadelphia and other cities.
SEPTA would “unduly limit competition” if it favored Hyundai Rotem just because it happened to be located in the city and could employ hundreds of local residents, Deon told City Council President Darrell L. Clarke in a March 2016 letter. Within two weeks, the board had voted to give the work to low-bidder CRRC, dooming the South Philly plant.
Hyundai Rotem declined to renew its expiring lease with owner Rimas Properties, the Philadelphia Business Journal reported.
“The contract was critical,” Kang said. “We pushed hard for SEPTA to initiate a pilot program to give preferences to local hiring. It didn’t end up happening.”
The Hyundai Rotem shutdown follows area heavy-industry layoffs in the last year at the Aker Philadelphia Shipyard at the other end of South Philly, and the Arcelor Mittal steelworks in Conshohocken, also due to lack of orders.
Deon complained in his letter to Clarke that there are few U.S. rail car plants left to buy cars from. That’s a contrast with the mid-1900s, when the city was home to the mighty Pennsylvania Railroad. Railway equipment suppliers including the Baldwin Locomotive Works, Budd Co., and J.G. Brill Co. employed thousands of workers here at hulking plants. The industry withered as highway travel largely replaced railroads and factories moved to cheaper U.S. and foreign locations.
Published: August 17, 2018 — 11:49 AM EDT
Another one bites the dust. How much did this one cost taxpayers in tax incentives as well as now paying for unemployment and future costs of remediating the quality issues in the Chinese crap they are about to purchase?
The death throws of industrial USA continue. Make China greater!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Yeah, but this is fake industrial USA, much like the European ownership of most of the American steel industry, or "New York" Air Brake, or the ownership of Zenith when it was the "American" contender for the HDTV standard in the Nineties. And I feel little more sympathy for Hyundai Rotem than I do for EMD over the F125s; should a company that can't manage to make drop equalizers that don't break, in the 21st Century, expect preferred order status the next time?
CMStPnP Another one bites the dust. How much did this one cost taxpayers in tax incentives as well as now paying for unemployment and future costs of remediating the quality issues in the Chinese crap they are about to purchase?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Overmod Yeah, but this is fake industrial USA, much like the European ownership of most of the American steel industry, or "New York" Air Brake, or the ownership of Zenith when it was the "American" contender for the HDTV standard in the Nineties.
Yeah, but this is fake industrial USA, much like the European ownership of most of the American steel industry, or "New York" Air Brake, or the ownership of Zenith when it was the "American" contender for the HDTV standard in the Nineties.
I would assume that you would prefer many of the American steelworkers in the Calumet region to be unemployed than draw a paycheck every two weeks from Arcelor Mittal. And how do you feel about the auto workers on Honda's assembly line in Lordstown, Ohio?
Also consider the various American companies with overseas plants, such as Harley Davidson, General Motors, etc.
It is wondered why Metrolink in Southern California never reordered passenger cars from that company. Perhaps the next crack-up will send bodies in the old passenger cars all over the right-of-way, and Metrolink will start crying for the strong cars!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- K.P.’s absolute “theorem” from early, early childhood that he has seen over and over and over again: Those that CAUSE a problem in the first place will act the most violently if questioned or exposed.
K. P. Harrier It is wondered why Metrolink in Southern California never reordered passenger cars from that company. Perhaps the next crack-up will send bodies in the old passenger cars all over the right-of-way, and Metrolink will start crying for the strong cars!
An 'entity' develops a need for railcars to haul passengers from point A to point B. They either have a 'design' to cover their needed equipment; or a manufacturer that agrees to build 'cars' to suit the specific needs of the organization ordering the cars. Seems a simple enough task- build a car(s) to agreed specific designs.
The organization ordering jolds the 'purse-strings'. That same party has an obligation to be able to inspect during the construction, and to test( if that is part of the arangement(?). If the test is no compliant, the manufacturer has an obligation to correct and make the product to the specifications agreed upon when the contract was entered into. [ Seems to be a fairly cut and dried process.
So why are these Car Manufacturers ( from off-shore ownership) come in take the government subsidies, and produce no compliant porducts; then foild their their tents and leave this country(?). Leaving non-compliant(?) equipment in their wake. And end-users who are stuck; trying to make-do with less than ideal {junk?} equipment?
It would seem like [to someone on the outside looking in] that American Industry could re-constitute a Pullman-Standard or Budd to provide new equipment?
samfp1943It would seem like [to someone on the outside looking in] that American Industry could re-constitute a Pullman-Standard or Budd to provide new equipment?
Would not take much as we retain most of the skills at passenger car rebuilders.
What I would like to see is an agreement between Mexico and Canada to ulitize just 2 or 3 car builders in all areas concerning rail transit and come up with a standardized car design in the area of crash standards as well as shell. At that macro level we should be able to at least keep 1 or 2 builders in business with steady orders.
I work in the public transit business (buses) and the bus market is littered with defunked manufacturers. It's a small market by world standards (6,000 buses annually), picky buyers (transit authority) and low margins. The rail market in the United States doesn't look much better. The last American manufacturer of rail cards was Morrison-Knudsen (aka Amerail). Don't start manufacturing buses or trains!
samfp1943An 'entity' develops a need for railcars to haul passengers from point A to point B. They either have a 'design' to cover their needed equipment; or a manufacturer that agrees to build 'cars' to suit the specific needs of the organization ordering the cars. Seems a simple enough task- build a car(s) to agreed specific designs.
I would opine that part of the problem is a lack of standardization in equipment.
There are still PCC cars in service. A number of tourist railroads still use passenger cars with a VIA (CNR?) heritage. They're getting tired, but they're still working.
However, everyone wants their own "signature" design. Can't have a car that looks like someone else's - thus the manufacturers are forced to engineer a new design, and that's just inviting problems.
It may already be there, but maybe the manufacturers need to be telling the customers that "you can't get there from here."
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
samfp1943 As someone who is 'just a railfan', and without any engineering skills; I do not understand this problem with building passenger railcars(?)........ Seems a simple enough task- build a car(s) to agreed specific designs........ If the test is no compliant, the manufacturer has an obligation to correct and make the product to the specifications agreed upon when the contract was entered into. [ Seems to be a fairly cut and dried process.
As someone who is 'just a railfan', and without any engineering skills; I do not understand this problem with building passenger railcars(?)........
Seems a simple enough task- build a car(s) to agreed specific designs........
If the test is no compliant, the manufacturer has an obligation to correct and make the product to the specifications agreed upon when the contract was entered into. [ Seems to be a fairly cut and dried process.
What you describe is how the project should ideally work. The N-S PRIIA bi-level cars are good example what can go wrong.
The project started with specification that contains a number of conflicting requirements like buffer load, weight limit, layout with requirements for locations of openings.
N-S got the order as subcontractor of Sumitomo. The bi-levels were designed in Japan and built in Rochelle according to Buy American requirements. Though in the Finite Element Analysis successful the carbody failed the 800,000 lbs buff load test.
N-S tried far more than a year to correct their design before the lost the order to Siemens single level cars.
It still disturbes me that N-S didn't find a solution and Japanese engineers don't give up easily.
So there must have something in the specification they were not able to meet under any circumstances.
And then the buyer needs cars desperately...........
I expect that N-S payed a lot of damages.Regards, Volker
The problems of passenger car construction that I think I am seeing is going back to the differences between locomotive manufacturers in the 1940's. EMD basically said - we are building one standard locomotive, buy it or go elsewhere if you want a whole bunch of different bells, whistles and doo dads. If you insist in having locomotives designed in the specialized steam engine manner - go to the former steam engine manufacturers Baldwin, Lima, ALCO. The steam engine manufacturers had not designed sufficiently good diesels, which soon became appearent with their high maintenance costs.
Todays passenger car procurement agencies all want their own bells, whistles and doo dads and they don't want accept any other agencies basic designs. Every time you have to reinvent the wheel it costs more and more with each reinvention.
It is amazing what was accomplished with the PCC street car, back in the day.
BaltACD The problems of passenger car construction that I think I am seeing is going back to the differences between locomotive manufacturers in the 1940's. EMD basically said - we are building one standard locomotive, buy it or go elsewhere if you want a whole bunch of different bells, whistles and doo dads. If you insist in having locomotives designed in the specialized steam engine manner - go to the former steam engine manufacturers Baldwin, Lima, ALCO. The steam engine manufacturers had not designed sufficiently good diesels, which soon became appearent with their high maintenance costs. "...Todays passenger car procurement agencies all want their own bells, whistles and doo dads and they don't want accept any other agencies basic designs. Every time you have to reinvent the wheel it costs more and more with each reinvention..." It is amazing what was accomplished with the PCC street car, back in the day.
"...Todays passenger car procurement agencies all want their own bells, whistles and doo dads and they don't want accept any other agencies basic designs. Every time you have to reinvent the wheel it costs more and more with each reinvention..."
Volker Landwehr added [in part]"...The project started with specification that contains a number of conflicting requirements like buffer load, weight limit, layout with requirements for locations of openings...N-S got the order as subcontractor of Sumitomo. The bi-levels were designed in Japan and built in Rochelle according to Buy American requirements. Though in the Finite Element Analysis successful the carbody failed the 800,000 lbs buff load test..."
Both VolkerLandwehr, and BaltACD seem to be saying that the problem lays in the Engineering Specifications( and possibly, their interpretations by the manufacturers(?).
It would seem that in this area; would it not be appropriate to have an Engineering Body, maybe under the authority of the AAR write the specifications to be followed in the construction of the passenger cars? I know 'they' seem to control the factor such as the 'Buffer' and 'Crush' strengths(?) for cars put into service(?). Pullman and Pullman-Standard, and Budd; along with the 'other' car builders seemed to be able to make 'compliant' passenger cars when they were in business. Maybe, the AAR needs to step-in, and require(?) that the car builders, build to a standard specification(?). Then, 'they' could monitor manufacturing compliance, all along the process to turning out passenger cars; that would be safe, and of standard compliance(?). Pretty soon, the cars currently in active service will reach the end of their active service cycles, and THEN who'll be available to build new cars(?) The industry sure needs to get in a proactive stance, before there is no one to build safe and compliant passenger rail equipment.
As previously noted, the PCC worked pretty well for the equipment it designed.
It should be noted that while the PCC car was a standardized design, it was also a modular concept, not one-size-fits-all. A transit operator could order a car with the appropriate front platform, number of doors, or any of a variety of standardized options.
I would assume that Siemens markets and manufactures its light-rail equipment in a similar fashion.
081552 (8-20):
Ah, a bus man!
This forum contributor has some experience with the history of buses and their financial acquisitions, at least I can relate to it.
A heavy handed government decree in the 1970’s was the Transbus, a very low to the ground miracle bus. A number of bus transit systems banded together and put out specifications for transit bus manufacturers to bid on. The glorious day arrived, and bids were opened. Trouble is, there were NO bidders! The humiliated government had to leave like a dog with its tail between its legs and howling in agony.
All the old transit bus manufacturers have left, and new fools try to make a go of it. The same with rail transit! Hyundai Rotem is the latest victim.
I am not up on transit rail’s current crashworthiness, except Metrolink in Southern California has a fleet of Hyundai Rotem cars. They are the only Metrolink cars I will ride for my own safety. And, I have an opinion where the next big Metrolink crash will occur, and it will have a few older cars that may or may not disintegrate in the freak mishap! The saving grace is that the believed line of the future crash has super bad (low) ridership currently. But, I believe that future accident will forever change rail transit, and strong Hyundai Rotem type cars will come into vogue by NTSB decree! And it will be mandatory for rail transit to have power on each end. As I recall, Brightline in Florida, a reportedly private outfit, puts power on both ends. They must know something that apparently push-pull types don’t!
K.P.
samfp1943Both VolkerLandwehr, and BaltACD seem to be saying that the problem lays in the Engineering Specifications( and possibly, their interpretations by the manufacturers(?).
Not only. You need always two, the buyer with his specification and the possible bidder. To stay with the PRIIA bi-level car procurement, a number of car builders participated in the design of the specification. But in the end it was designed by a committee. There were no priliminay calculations to verify the requirements.
Interesting is the two step bidding process for these cars. Seven buiders showed interest but Hyundai-Rotem dropped of before the first step, the draft. After the draft the bidders were told in confident meetings where they weren't compliant to eliminate this points for the final bid. Bombardier didn't provide a final offer. Siemens and Alstom left the non-compliant points in their final offer and were eliminated. Out of the remaining three Sumitomo won. https://www.arema.org/files/library/2013_Conference_Proceedings/Implementation_the_Nations_First_Standardized_Intercity_Rail_Car_Specification.pdf
The prelimininary analysis was done by every bidder for the draft bid. It looks to me like four bidders did find requirements they were not able to comply to and choose different exit strategies.
samfp1943It would seem that in this area; would it not be appropriate to have an Engineering Body, maybe under the authority of the AAR write the specifications to be followed in the construction of the passenger cars?
I'm not sure that there is the necessary expertise for this task anywhere beside the builders.
On the other hand each builder has his own building procedures optimizing his costs. With a ready design that is only possible to a limited extend. The pruduct can get more expensive.
samfp1943Pullman and Pullman-Standard, and Budd; along with the 'other' car builders seemed to be able to make 'compliant' passenger cars when they were in business.
All the car builders are able to build compliant to a given specification, if the specification is consistant, which apperently the PRIIA car specs aren't. Siemens got a document change with a higher weight limit for the single level car.
In years past there were safety requirements but weight limits were secondary. That changed with high speed trains. You want to carry too much tare weight at high speed especially if you used the weight limits in car specification to specify a locomotive.
And the is what Balt said, the bells and whistles. A good example seems the new RFP from Amtrak and Metra for new locomotives. Though there are specifications for staight electrics (Siemens ASC-64) and diesel-electrics (PRIIA 305-005), there will be change specs. I think you won't get a diesel-elecric cheaper than from the Siemens Charger option.
Ironically Amtrak participated in the PRIIA specifications.
There is a PRIIA Dual Mode spec but both, Amtrak and Metra use their own. Now they try to adjust them to be able to buy the same locomotive.
The problem isn't that car builders aren't able to build to a specification, but that specification sometime don't work. With to many conflicting requirements the ridge between work and doesn't work can get really thin. In case of the bi-levels four had doubts, three not.
A bit disturbing in hindsight is that Siemens and Alstom were eliminated without engineers discussing their doubts. Perhaps the desaster could have been prevented. Regards, Volker
CSSHEGEWISCHIt should be noted that while the PCC car was a standardized design, it was also a modular concept, not one-size-fits-all. A transit operator could order a car with the appropriate front platform, number of doors, or any of a variety of standardized options. I would assume that Siemens markets and manufactures its light-rail equipment in a similar fashion.
- PDN.
Here is a report from 2016 showing the development of crashworthiness standards for light-rail vehicles: https://www.apta.com/mc/rail/previous/2016rail/presentations/Presentations/JSwanson.pdf
CEM elements were required in some specifications as early as 1995.Regards, Volker
VOLKER LANDWEHR Here is a report from 2016 showing the development of crashworthiness standards for light-rail vehicles: https://www.apta.com/mc/rail/previous/2016rail/presentations/Presentations/JSwanson.pdf CEM elements were required in some specifications as early as 1995.Regards, Volker
Nice to see some logic being applied to the standards. Thanks for the info.
Any knowledge of what PCC cars were designed for?
I don't really know. Looking into the linked report there were no crashworthiness standards before 1952.
So I assume that the PCC streetcars were designed just for the mechanical stresses during operations. Each structure can provide some crashworthiness even if it was never calculated. I think the amount is not known.
It is just an opinion perhaps someone knows more.Regards, Volker
They should save the tax payer's oodles of money by firing that Public Relations IDIOT Pasquale Dion..............he's been the cause of morte of SEPTA's problems than he's worth. he was the moron who decided on the "subway car" Silverliner Vs against the objections of the crews who wanted a more conventional rail car like the GE Silverliner IVs
Doug
VOLKER LANDWEHRSo I assume that the PCC streetcars were designed just for the mechanical stresses during operations. Each structure can provide some crashworthiness even if it was never calculated. I think the amount is not known.
I would opine that the PCC cars were subject to the same over-engineering that buildings were - better to build too strong than too weak, and the computers that today allow rapid calculations down to the nth degree didn't exist.
Thus, instead of building the cars to just meet X, they were built to meet X+, providing a greater margin of safety...
The PCC car looked revolutionary, but its car-body design was anything but revolutionary. They began with a test car, a sample Twincoach (bus manufacturer) body, a car the B&QT subsidiary of the BMT system had bought as a sample in the late 1920s. But this body design closely followed that of the single-end Brill "Master Units" and the similar 6000s and 6200s that were already running on Brooklyn's streets. This was the PCC A car, on which various trucks designs and mechanical designs were tried, along with acceleration and deceleration tests. This evolved into the more streamlined Pullman (Worcester, former Osgood Bradley plant) B car, where second-stage PCC componants were tried, with some test revenue service. At the same time the pre-PCC "Magic Carpet" cars were built for MUNI, with a similar, but double-end, body, and 20 similar single-end cars were built for Capitol Transit, all capable of revealing any real problems that might occur in the production run of PCCs. So when the first PCCs started revenue service in Brooklyn and Pittsburgh, the design was free from problems.
The extensive test and development program was very parallel to that the PRR undertook 20 years earlier in the development of the E6 Atlantic.
Structurally, it was an evolutionary, not revolutionary, design. Pullman and St. Louis, and GE, and Westinghouse, and Clark Equipment were all involved. Brill dropped out at one point to pursue their own design, resulting in the Brilliner, the cars similar to PCCs that gave excellent service in Atlantic City for many years and cars 1-10 for Red Arrow, but conventional drop-equalizer outside-frame trucks.
Outside of Philadelphia Suburban Transportation, most Brilliners were orphans on their transit systems. Brill also attempted to use the PCC resilient wheels without paying royalties, which got them hauled into court by the Transit Research Corp.
Could someone answer a few questions about the PCC cars for me? Someone on an automobile forum asked a question about them and I posted what I understood, but it made me wonder if I really know anything at all. Corrections to my understandings are welcome and appreciated.
My understanding is that several (or was it all) major urban transit systems got together with streetcar manufacturers when they realized the automobile was taking away their customers. The intent was to come up with a comfortable vehicle which would be attractive to customers and reasonable in cost due to economies of scale, and could be manufactured by any participating manufacturer. Correct?
When did the process start, and when did the first PCC car enter service? When was the last one made?
Thanks for your help.
Perhaps this Wikipedia article answers your questions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCC_streetcarRegards, Volker
For your consideration: "PCC: The Car That Fought Back" by Stephen Carlson and Fred W. Schneider, published by Interurban Press. It covers the development and evolution of the PCC in all of its various iterations in extensive detail.
VOLKER LANDWEHR Perhaps this Wikipedia article answers your questions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCC_streetcarRegards, Volker
Thanks.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.