posted
Hope that I'm not stepping on any GM union workers, but why can't GM or any of these car mfg. build passenger rail cars? Seems to me that a good share of the tooling is there.
The Times suggests that such could be the case; brief passage:
Michigan is also pursuing wind-power technology, solar-panel manufacturing, even production of railroad cars — any viable industry that might be interested in hiring the thousands of engineers who used to work in the auto industry
Regarding any possible notions of "union-busting", when EMD was under GM ownership, workers at La Grange were represented by the UAW; at London the CAW. I hightly doubt that since the spinoff, that pre-existing Labor Agreements were abrogated. Had such been the case and with my railroad Labor Relations background, I think I would have "picked up" on such.
RR4me Member # 6052
posted
IF GE can build locomotives, I suspect the GM can build railcars. All it takes is desire, vision, money and...Oh yeah, maybe not.
rresor Member # 128
posted
GM *did*, in years past, build rail cars, just not in plants designed to assemble autos. I don't see why they can't again start to manufacture rail cars. They've got lots of engineers and skilled assembly line workers (yes, the engineering of the cars was mediocre at best and the quality of the cars assembled by the workers also failed to meet global standards, but I'd like to think that was more a function of management than of workforce quality).
PullmanCo Member # 1138
posted
Greyhound coach bodies with 4'8 1/2" rail wheels.
There's a reason Aerotrain didn't take off.
There's a reason it didn't last long on any road it ran demonstration under.
Can GM really do structural steel and aluminum?
Mr. Toy Member # 311
posted
If Ford could build B-24 bombers in WWII, I don't know why GM couldn't build railcars. But is there a sufficient demand to make it worthwhile? Look what happened to Colorado Railcar.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
Mr. Pullman, Aerotrain was a, what the modellers call, a kit bash of existing parts and assemblies. The engineering done for such had to be described as minimal. The only original assembly was the "radical" design of the locomotive's carbody. Underneath was a 567-12 engine normally used in SW models. There was one powered truck assembly; again same as for an SW-1200.
The cars were simply GM Highway Traveler intercity bus bodies with a 2ft "extender placed down the middle of such. I believe the "cars" undercarriages were based upon the Talgo that was being developed at that time.
However, after one ride, the public that showed up to do simply said "enough is enough".
But with that being said, I'm certain that a properly engineered railcar could be produced in a former automaker assembly plant - and employing UAW represented employees as well.
Tanner929 Member # 3720
posted
The Owners (The US Government)floated the idea, the Union leadership said thats against the contract and to shut up and just send the checks.
PullmanCo Member # 1138
posted
Mr Norman,
Our mutual confidence in GM is reflected in your (3d?) Lex and my longstanding ownership of a Jeep Grand Cherokee Laredo.
If GM were to receive license from Bombardier and build the existing plans slowly deteriorating at IRM (P-S and Budd... I think ACF still owns its own), then yes, I think they could meet design spec.
Original engineering? That's almost as much fun as watching the Kansas Legislature pass a budget.
Ocala Mike Member # 4657
posted
My first car ever was a 1959 Chevy Bel Air with huge tailfins; that was probably the high-water year for Chevrolet, which soon would introduce the "unsafe at any speed" Corvair. Haven't bought a GM product since, new or used.
Mr. Toy Member # 311
posted
If we're gonna discuss cars, let me say that our 2003 Impala is the best car we've ever owned. It gets better mileage than the smaller Mazda it replaced.
posted