On 29/3/23 10:29, Mal Rowe wrote:
> It's more than a decision to keep money at home.

>

> The decision to go for the E and G classes in Melbourne was based on

> hard learnt lessons about getting a tram that is 'fit for purpose'.

>

>

I'm sure Alstom's factories in Spain or India would have turned a G
class to the exact same design if the contract had not specified 'local
content'.

Bombardier could have built the E in European or Asian factories for
less. It was a conscious political decision to specify 'local content'.
Although the 'local content' on that latest build of trains seems to be
some one what marginal - shipping in complete body shells fabricated in
China doesn't really count IMHO. The local content appears to be
'assemble a kit from overseas sourced components and sub systems.

Export our Iron ore and coal to China, get a complete body shell back.

And when the body cracks, we then find we have no local skills needed to
repair it as their was no ongoing employment for welder/fabricators so
no one apprenticed to the trade.

At any rate even the new G class is basically a 'kit' using standard
modular designs from existing platforms. It just has a few
'optimizations' for Melbourne's use case.