final trimet/city of portland of transportation technical capacity

FINAL TriMet/City of Portland Bureau of Transportation

Technical Capacity and Capability Review

of Oregon Iron Works

August 17, 2010

by

LTK Engineering Services

LTK TCC Final Page i August 17, 2010

Technical Capacity and Capability Review of

Oregon Iron Works Table of Contents

Executive Summary

1. Introduction and Background ................................................................................................3 1.1 Purpose.........................................................................................................................3 1.2 Review Team ................................................................................................................4 1.3 Methodology..................................................................................................................4

2. Company Overview...............................................................................................................5 2.1 History and Scale of Operations....................................................................................5 2.2 Facilities ........................................................................................................................5 2.3 Products ........................................................................................................................5 2.4 Organization and Subsidiaries ......................................................................................6

3. Physical Plant and Equipment ..............................................................................................8 3.1 Principal Features .........................................................................................................8 3.2 Ownership .....................................................................................................................8 3.3 Equipment and Comparison to Other Assembly Facilities ............................................9 3.4 Production Documentation ..........................................................................................11 3.5 Maintenance of Equipment..........................................................................................11 3.6 Extent of Plant Capacity in Use...................................................................................11 3.7 Safety Record..............................................................................................................11 3.8 Availability of 750 Vdc .................................................................................................11 3.9 Availability of General Test Equipment .......................................................................12 3.10 Availability of Test Track .............................................................................................12 3.11 Summary .....................................................................................................................12

4. Organizational Structure for Streetcar Work ......................................................................13 4.1 General Division of Work.............................................................................................13 4.2 Major Suppliers and Location of Work ........................................................................13

5. Management Experience and Capabilities..........................................................................16 6. Design .................................................................................................................................17

6.1 Internal Capacity .........................................................................................................17 6.1.1 Mechanical Engineering ......................................................................................17 6.1.2 Electrical Engineering..........................................................................................18 6.1.3 Systems Integration.............................................................................................18 6.1.4 Tools....................................................................................................................19

6.2 Role of Elin ..................................................................................................................19 6.3 Role of Third Parties....................................................................................................19 6.4 Summary .....................................................................................................................19

7. Manufacturing .....................................................................................................................20 7.1 Transit Specific Manufacturing Experience .................................................................20 7.2 Internal Capacity .........................................................................................................21

7.2.1 Production Engineering .......................................................................................25 7.2.2 Tooling and Fixtures............................................................................................25 7.2.3 Mechanical Fabrication and Assembly ................................................................27 7.2.4 Painting ...............................................................................................................27 7.2.5 Equipment Installation and Wiring.......................................................................28 7.2.6 Outfitting and Finishing........................................................................................28

LTK TCC Final Page ii August 17, 2010

7.2.7 Project Control.....................................................................................................29 7.3 Role of Elin in Manufacturing ......................................................................................29 7.4 Role of Other Third Party Suppliers ............................................................................30

8. Procurement........................................................................................................................31 8.1 Major Supplier Contracts.............................................................................................31 8.2 Procurement Tools ......................................................................................................31 8.3 Summary .....................................................................................................................31

9. Quality Assurance/Quality Control ......................................................................................32 9.1 Staffing ........................................................................................................................32 9.2 QA/QC Plan.................................................................................................................32 9.3 First Article Inspections ...............................................................................................32 9.4 In-process Inspections ................................................................................................32 9.5 Car History Books .......................................................................................................33

10. Testing and Commissioning............................................................................................34 10.1 Master Test Plan .........................................................................................................34

10.1.1 Materials and Standards Tests............................................................................34 10.1.2 Proof-of-Design or Qualification Tests.................................................................35 10.1.3 Conformance Tests .............................................................................................35 10.1.4 Vehicle Acceptance Tests ...................................................................................35 10.1.5 Status ..................................................................................................................36

10.2 Procedures..................................................................................................................36 10.3 Testing/Commissioning Staffing Plan..........................................................................36

10.3.1 In-house Staff ......................................................................................................36 10.3.2 Role of Elin in Testing .........................................................................................36 10.3.3 Role of Other Parties...........................................................................................37

10.4 Internal/External Testing Facilities ..............................................................................37 11. Additional Considerations ...............................................................................................38

11.1 Scheduling Capabilities and Schedule Adherence......................................................38 11.2 Capacity to Manage Multiple Streetcar Projects Concurrently ....................................38 11.3 Ability to Recognize Problem Areas Early...................................................................38 11.4 Corporate Philosophy..................................................................................................39

12. Summary and Conclusions .............................................................................................40 List of Figures

2-1 OIW Organization Chart

3-1 Aerial View of Clackamas Facility

4-1 United Streetcar Organization Chart

7-1 Scale of Typical OIW Fabrication Work

7-2 Layout of Streetcar Assembly Building

7-3 Test Track

7-4 Production Fixture for Roof Section

7-5 Precision Fixture for Heavy Weldments

7-6 Milling Machine for Truck Frame

LTK TCC Final Page iii August 17, 2010

Appendices

Appendix A TCC Discussion Topics

Appendix B OIW Safety Statistics

Appendix C Resumes of Key Staff

Appendix D Sample Contract with Supplier

Appendix E Schedule

LTK TCC Final Page 1 August 17, 2010

Technical Capacity and Capability Review of

Oregon Iron Works Executive Summary

This report has been prepared in response to a request by TriMet to answer inquiries from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Region 10 acting through its Project Management Oversight (PMO) consultant for the on-going Streetcar Loop Project in Portland, OR. As such, it documents an investigation of the technical capacity and capability (TCC) of Oregon Iron Works (OIW) to design, manufacture, and commission modern streetcars for the City of Portland (COP) and pending and future streetcar clients such as the City of Tucson (COT).

OIW is a privately held, small business founded in 1944 in Oregon as a provider of fabricated steel products, initially in the hydro industry. It has grown throughout the years into a specialty manufacturing and metal working company serving a wide variety of industries and numerous clients, both public and private firms, across the globe. A substantial part of OIW’s business is defense contract work.

According to OIW, the company sees streetcar work as a growth industry in this country and wants to position itself as a leader in providing Buy America compliant vehicles to the growing host of cities around the country eager to develop new systems. OIW believes that the modern streetcar, as complex as it may be, is a logical extension of their capabilities to produce large, specialized products in limited quantities. OIW asserts that it can fill a niche in supplying orders of small quantities, e.g. three to ten vehicles, that may not be of sufficient interest to larger, more established carbuilders.

The Prototype Streetcar was OIW’s first venture into the rail car manufacturing business in early 2007 and demonstrated that the company can in fact build a modern streetcar to modern standards but has yet to demonstrate that its product is ready for revenue service. It was a very instructive project for OIW and provided a steep learning curve. OIW is assembling an in-house project team that draws heavily from former Freightliner staff. To date, the team appears strong on the mechanical side and weak on the electrical side. The addition of Elin as propulsion supplier and systems integrator significantly augments the electrical side, but we believe OIW should also commit to build up in-house knowledge and experience on the electrical side. We recommend that OIW make it a priority to find and add to its in-house project team at least a couple electrical engineers and a couple QC inspectors experienced in rail vehicles. OIW management has recently indicated a willingness to do so. Streetcar program management work is now consolidated under one person, Leon Kaunitz, and separate project managers reporting to Mr. Kaunitz have been assigned for the Eastside Streetcar project and the Prototype Streetcar Projects. This arrangement is a step in the right direction as it has appeared that Mr. Kaunitz has been trying to wear too many hats at the same time. Another positive management feature has been the recent substantial hands-on involvement of Corey Yraguen, President of OIW, in various streetcar meetings and activities.

The OIW physical plant and equipment are more than adequate for the planned streetcar production. Continued planning for a paint booth, dc power equipment, and the test track are


aimed in the right direction but each of these physical plant elements needs to be implemented. On balance, we believe OIW exceeds the capability of the Czech producers of the existing Portland streetcars particularly in the critical area of mechanical fabrication, which is the core business for OIW.

As is common with most carbuilders, OIW has many, many suppliers of raw materials, small parts, components, and complete systems. Management and technical oversight of suppliers are key ingredients to the success of any rail vehicle contract, and we believe OIW must augment its engineering staff to include one or more qualified electrical engineers specifically to watch over its major electrical suppliers such as Elin, Shunk, and Vecom. Testing requirements for rail vehicles are extensive, and, drawing from the Prototype project, OIW is making good progress in developing its Master Test Plan (MTP). The availability of a test track at OIW’s manufacturing facility will be a significant asset in testing and troubleshooting problems before the cars are shipped to COP or COT tracks. OIW’s plan to have Elin test and commission the first two COP vehicles then transition the responsibility to OIW in-house testing staff is a good one.

At this very early stage in its streetcar history, OIW’s ability to successfully manage and deliver nearly concurrent streetcar projects for the COP and the COT is to some extent dependent on the commonality of design and hardware between the two vehicles. While there are certainly differences in the requirements, OIW is making a concerted effort to align the designs as much as possible. We believe the following are action items for OIW which should be monitored as the streetcar projects proceed:

• Addition of one or two experienced rail vehicle electrical engineers • Addition of one or two experienced rail vehicle QC personnel • Plan for painting the carshells • Set-up of the production facility • Construction of the test track

In summary, our assessment is that OIW, with the addition of some qualified electrical engineering expertise, has the technical capacity and capability in physical plant and personnel to successfully design, manage, fabricate, test and commission the streetcars for the COP and for the COT.


1. Introduction and Background

This review was undertaken at the request of TriMet to respond to inquiries from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Region 10, acting through its Project Management Oversight (PMO) consultant assigned to the City of Portland (COP) Eastside Loop Streetcar Project. Although this report focuses on the technical capacity and capability (TCC) of Oregon Iron Works (OIW) to successfully execute COP contract 30000696 for Eastside Loop streetcars, the similarity in scope and the near simultaneity in time of OIW’s contract with the City of Tucson (COT) to produce streetcars for the Modern Streetcar Project impose considerations which cannot be ignored in this TCC review.

The report is divided into twelve sections as follows:

• Section 1 provides an introduction to the study, the review team, and the methodology used.

• Section 2 provides a brief overview of OIW as a company.

• The physical plant and equipment at the primary OIW facility in Clackamas, Oregon are described in Section 3.

• The overall OIW organizational arrangement for conduct of the streetcar work is reviewed in Section 4.

• OIW management qualifications are provided in Section 5.

• The OIW design process and capabilities are discussed in Section 6.

• Section 7 discusses the manufacturing processes OIW has in place.

• Section 8 discusses OIW procurement practices.

• The OIW quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) organization and capabilities are provided in Section 9.

• The testing and commissioning plan is reviewed in Section 10.

• A number of additional TCC considerations are presented in Section 11.

• A summary and conclusions are presented in Section 12.

1.1 Purpose

The purpose of this review is to answer the following types of questions:

• How is OIW organized to conduct this work? What work will be performed in-house and what will be contracted out?

• Does OIW have the physical plant and personnel resources to conduct this work?

• Are the experience and qualifications of OIW’s management team adequate for the task?

• Does OIW have processes and procedures in place to effectively conduct the design, manufacturing, and testing of the streetcars?


• Does OIW have a viable QA/QC Plan and capacity and capability to execute it?

• Does OIW have the ability to identify, analyze, and manage risks and problems as they occur in the course of the work?

1.2 Review Team

The LTK Review Team is composed of four members:

John S. Gustafson, P.E. NW Regional Vice President

Dennis L. Porter Streetcar Project Manager, Portland and Seattle

Roger Andreassen, P.E. Owner’s Representative for TriMet Type 4 Procurement

Michael Hall, P.E. Streetcar Engineer, Portland, Seattle, Tacoma, and DC

Resumes of the Review Team are available on request. In aggregate, the Team has approximately 120 years of experience in the rail transit field, with a substantial portion directly related to rail vehicles. Two of the team members have on-going roles in the oversight and technical review of the OIW contract with the COP, and two have spent considerable time at streetcar production facilities in the Czech Republic where COP’s first streetcars were built.

1.3 Methodology

The basic methodology in this review was fairly straightforward. A list of discussion topics was developed and transmitted to OIW (see Appendix A), two face-to-face meetings with OIW management were held on May 17 and May 24, a tour of the OIW facilities in Clackamas was taken, material submitted by OIW was reviewed, and numerous telephone calls were held. From this process, this report was prepared by the Review Team.


2. Company Overview

2.1 History and Scale of Operations

OIW is a privately held, small business founded in 1944 in Oregon as a provider of fabricated steel products, initially in the hydro industry. It has grown throughout the years into a specialty manufacturing and metal working company serving a wide variety of industries and numerous clients, both public and private firms, across the globe. A substantial part of OIW’s business is defense contract work.

The Prototype Streetcar project, funded by the FTA, was OIW’s first venture into the transit field in 2007, although the company’s portfolio does include design, fabrication, and test of specialized marine craft.

OIW reports current annual sales of $120+M, an employment base of approximately 400 office and shop employees, and a labor volume of approximately 800,000 person hours per year. Most shop employees are unionized, and the company boasts of stable union relations without ever having a work stoppage. Although actual work patterns vary significantly depending on the mix of projects at any one time, the company is capable of three shift operation, and swing and night shifts do comprise over a third of the manufacturing hours currently.

2.2 Facilities

The company’s headquarters and main manufacturing facilities are located in Clackamas, OR, approximately 15 miles southeast of downtown Portland. Additional manufacturing facilities are also located across the river from Portland in Vancouver, WA, and offer direct water access to the Columbia River, an important consideration for OIW’s various marine and bridge product lines.

The two facilities have been growing and currently provide almost 350,000 square feet (under roof) of manufacturing footprint and 38,000 square feet of office space on a total of 38 acres. As discussed in Section 3, additional land is being prepared at the Clackamas facility for construction of a streetcar test track.

2.3 Products

Over the years OIW has produced a very wide variety of equipment and products for industries such as the bridge industry, the hydro-electric industry, the marine industry, aerospace and defense, and the nuclear industry. These products tend to be large, complex specialty items in low quantities, as opposed to mass-produced items, and a sampling includes large gates for hydroelectric projects, bridges and bridge parts, specialty marine craft, space launch towers, unmanned seaplanes, and nuclear containment vessels. Many of these products were designed and developed in-house by OIW and include not only specialty metal fabrication but integration of various electrical, mechanical, and hydraulic systems that had to meet rigorous industry design and quality standards. OIW estimates that approximately 50% of its business is with the defense industry but that this ratio is trending lower.


OIW also estimates, assuming the COT contract is signed, that for the next three years their known streetcar work (COP and COT) will comprise approximately 12% to 15% of their revenue but only 5% to 8% of their person hours, obviously reflecting the substantial portion of the streetcar that is contracted out to suppliers, etc. Thus, streetcar work will be an important but relatively small portion of their overall business at least in the short term.

According to OIW, the company sees streetcar work as a growth industry in this country and wants to position itself as a leader in providing Buy America compliant vehicles to the growing host of cities around the country eager to develop new systems. They believe that the modern streetcar, as complex as it may be, is a logical extension of their capabilities to produce large, specialized products in limited quantities. Due to the smaller size and nature of streetcar projects, compared to light rail or heavy rail, OIW believes that it can fill a niche in supplying orders of small quantities, e.g. three to ten vehicles, that may not be of sufficient interest to larger, established carbuilders. Also, with the growth potential in the industry, OIW sees the possibility of developing a product line with some longevity and repetitiveness as opposed to the singular nature of some of its larger projects or only one or two initial streetcar orders.

As will be discussed below, OIW appears to be making an investment in tooling and facilities that extends beyond that required for its COP and COT orders in order to establish the streetcar as one of its major product lines.

2.4 Organization and Subsidiaries

The organizational structure of OIW is provided in Figure 2-1 and reflects an arrangement mostly along major product lines.

As shown in Figure 2-1, OIW has created a wholly owned subsidiary, United Streetcar, to progress its streetcar business, although resources for streetcar work are drawn from throughout the company. Maranatha, providing industrial electrical services, is the other wholly owned subsidiary of OIW. Both are co-located at OIW facilities.

OIW, the parent company, not United Streetcar, is the actual contractor with the COP, an arrangement apparently related to ability to acquire necessary bonding.


Figure 2-1 OIW Organization Chart


3. Physical Plant and Equipment

3.1 Principal Features

The OIW primary manufacturing facility and corporate headquarters is located in Clackamas, Oregon (a suburb of Portland) with an additional marine fabrication facility located on the Columbia River in Vancouver, Washington. This report focuses on the Clackamas facility where the streetcars are to be built.

The Clackamas facility is comprised of approximately 250,000 square feet of production space under roof, and situated on a 38 acre site. Of the total, 34,000 square feet is office space. Refer to Figure 3-1 for an aerial view of the facility.

The company, as a whole, employs approximately 400 people and expends roughly 800,000 man-hours per year in the various shops. The majority are employed at the Clackamas facility.

Figure 3-1 Aerial View of Clackamas Facility

3.2 Ownership

Of concern in this report are the three inter-related companies of Oregon Iron Works, Inc., United Streetcar, Inc., and Maranatha Electrical Construction Co., Inc. United Streetcar and Maranatha are wholly owned subsidiaries of OIW.

Oregon Iron Works was established in 1944 as a heavy iron “spec bid job shop”. Mr. Terry Aarnio bought the company in 1975. Maranatha was established in 1977 by Mr. Robert Beal.


Ultimately the two companies merged and today Mr. Aarnio is the Chairman of the Board, and Mr. Beal is the Chief Executive Officer. Together they are the primary stockholders and decision makers.

Two other top level officers play integral parts in the management of the United Streetcar subsidiary. They are Ms. Chandra Brown, Vice President of OIW and President of United Streetcar and Mr. Cory Yraguen, President of OIW.

3.3 Equipment and Comparison to Other Assembly Facilities

In many respects, it is not a fair comparison to align statistics of the several large, well established railcar manufacturers in Europe or Asia with those of OIW. Companies which have been competing in the U.S. for several years such as Bombardier, Siemens, KinkiSharyo, Kawasaki, CAF, and Breda are large well established firms with a focus on rail transit or a major division with a focus on rail cars, have long histories of supplying rail vehicles to an international marketplace, and typically have significant manufacturing capabilities and very large plant capacities. Most of these firms have produced or are producing large sized orders of vehicles, or several concurrent orders, which demand a different scale of operation than OIW’s foray into the industry. OIW, simply stated, is a newcomer trying to break into the rail car industry. It specifically has targeted the streetcar niche of the rail car industry with its low volumes and (so far) high commonality of design. Certainly OIW must grow and adapt its plant capabilities initially to produce the streetcars, but these facilities will likely remain modest in comparison, for example, to the Siemens facility in Sacramento or Bombardier’s multiple facilities in North America.

However, an interesting factory comparison can be made with either Skoda Transportation, of Plzen, Czech Republic, or Inekon Trams, of Prague with a primary manufacturing facility in Ostrava, Czech Republic. These are the two manufacturers of the modern streetcars provided to Portland, Tacoma, Seattle, and Washington, DC (the first Portland and Tacoma cars were built by Skoda under contract to Inekon, and the remaining cars were built by Inekon in a cooperative arrangement with the transit agency in Ostrava).

The origin of the Oregon Iron Works design is derived from the Skoda and Inekon designs; thus the manufacturing requirements are very similar. In general, the OIW shops are far better equipped and present an overall modern approach to manufacturing than either the original Skoda facility or the Ostrava facility. However, OIW will need to complete its plans for a paint facility, and tooling such as the portable car jacks (all in the stage of study and decisions should be forthcoming). See Section 7 for more details on the OIW manufacturing program.

LTK staff members have spent considerable time in all three factories, and the following chart provides our subjective comparison of the capabilities that we have witnessed. The ratings in the chart are simply a ranking of first, second, and third place (obviously in descending order of capability). While all three manufacturers have demonstrated their ability to manufacture a quality product, albeit with a much lesser history for OIW, it is our general opinion that, overall, OIW offers a superior manufacturing capability in the basic elements of mechanical fabrication.


OIW Skoda4 Inekon

Light Machining Capacity 3 2 1

Heavy Machining Capacity 1 2 X1

Light Gage Metals Fabrication 2 3 1

Heavy Gage Metals Fabrication 1 2 X1

Wheel Pressing and Truck Assembly X2 1 2

Quality of Machine Work 1 3 2

Quality of Fabrication Fit and Tolerances 1 3 2

Quality of Welding 1 3 2

QA / QC Procedures & Documentation 1 3 2

Engineering and Design Experience 3 1 2

Engineering Tools 1 2 3

Communication between Design and Mfg. 1 3 1

Purchasing and Outside Contracts Mgmt. 1 3 1

NOTE: 1. Inekon sub-contracts both heavy machining and fabrication to outside sources.

2. OIW uses Penn Machine – See Section 7 of this report for detail.

3. Both Skoda and Inekon have some in-house capability, but both rely on outside technical resources for most certified testing and final performance testing and instrumentation.

4. We are aware that Skoda has just recently built a new building, on their existing plant site, primarily for streetcar assembly. LTK has not inspected this new shop. But we are also informed that any additions of new machinery and capability are somewhat limited.

There will be one major difference in the OIW production methodology when compared to the Czech car builders. At both Skoda and Inekon the cars are essentially stall built – the workmen move to the vehicle, with exception of critical body movements through such operations as the paint booth. By contrast, OIW will base their production on a limited production line approach, moving the car as it progresses. This will ultimately enable OIW to achieve higher annual production output. However, the production line approach will be less forgiving of mistakes; thus requiring a higher level of production planning. In our interviews with their production manager, they do demonstrate the knowledge of what will be needed to accomplish this. The proof will be an on-time, smooth running line, with good quality products resulting.


The OIW production goal is 24 cars per year, with a planned second (future) production line possible, thus doubling the output to 48 cars per year.

3.4 Production Documentation

OIW has had extensive experience in very sophisticated production documentation, document control, and QA/QC documentation. They regularly produce products for military and nuclear applications, where the documentation requirements will significantly exceed the needs in the streetcar division. For more detail on this subject, refer to Section 7 of this report.

3.5 Maintenance of Equipment

Our judgment as to the level of machine reliability, tolerance repeatability, and general equipment maintenance is made primarily from shop visits and the time spent during the building of the prototype streetcar with parts inspection. In general, we have no problems in this regard. Also noteworthy is the fact that the shops are clean, devoid of old parts and materials left in piles, and the employees were observed to be productive. The overall “health” of the facility appears to be very good.

3.6 Extent of Plant Capacity in Use

In view of the current down economy, the plant appears to be about 60% to 70% of normal capacity. Noteworthy is that OIW has just completed an expansion with the addition of a 60 ft x 240 ft heavy crane building. This was specifically added to relieve any facility congestion that is eminent with the addition of the streetcar products. More detail of the manufacturing capacity can be found in Section 7 of this report.

3.7 Safety Record

The ORE-OSHA safety statistics for the OIW operation(s) are included in Appendix B. The company safety performance has been good and there is a formal safety program in effect. The safety program includes safety training and incentives, as well as mandatory safety tracking.

3.8 Availability of 750 Vdc

OIW does not have a 750 Vdc power supply on site at this time. Plans to purchase the necessary equipment have been made with an industry supplier of such equipment. During our interviews with top management, we advised them on obtaining the necessary electrical engineering from a local Portland consultant with experience in these systems. They will need this assistance to perform the final design work for the dc power supply installation.


3.9 Availability of General Test Equipment

As witnessed during the building of the Prototype streetcar, OIW has the general test equipment to perform the work at hand. They have demonstrated a desire to purchase instrumentation, equipment and software in those areas where a repeated need can be demonstrated. Some of the OIW owned equipment we observed during the building of the prototype included laser alignment tools, all levels of weld testing equipment, and all necessary electrical test equipment to verify electrical installation (i.e., Meg-Ohm tester, continuity tester, oscilloscope, hand meters, etc.).

The Portland area is also a good location to find supporting suppliers. It is possible to rent and/or lease most specialty equipment that could be required. Such was the case with some of the vibration analysis equipment used in testing the Prototype.

There is a level of performance testing that is required to verify car acceleration, power consumption, deceleration, and proper operations through the on-board computer systems. This level of testing will be performed by Elin, since the propulsion equipment, computer and software systems, and operating systems integration are provided under the Elin sub-contract. This approach is Elin’s preferred method since it is their equipment to be proven and software and hardware may contain Elin intellectual property.

3.10 Availability of Test Track

A test track has been in the planning stages for many months. The engineering is complete and OIW is in discussions with two experienced contractors for the civil and electrical work. The test track can be ready for the first production car commissioning if plans proceed without delay. An overall layout of the test track is included in Section 7 as Figure 7-4.

3.11 Summary

The OIW physical plant and equipment are more than adequate for the planned streetcar production. Continued planning for a paint booth, dc power equipment, and the test track are aimed in the right direction but need to be implemented.

On balance, we believe OIW exceeds the capability of Czech car producers in the critical area of mechanical fabrication, which is the core business for OIW.


4. Organizational Structure for Streetcar Work

The United Streetcar Project Team is shown in Figure 4-1 and currently includes approximately 30 to 35 OIW personnel plus additional support personnel, e.g. from Documentation Control, and eventually production personnel. It is understood that the nature of organization charts is change, and we would expect the chart to look differently as the streetcar work proceeds.

4.1 General Division of Work

As discussed in more detail in other sections of this report, OIW plays the following roles in the COP contract:

• The contractor with the COP.

• The designer and fabricator of the carshells and truck frames.

• The integrator of mechanical systems.

• The procurer of major systems, components, and materials.

• The final assembler who installs wiring, electrical equipment, the cabs, and interior and exterior finishing.

• The QA/QC team that inspects/audits the work internally and externally.

• The tester of the completed car (shared with Elin).

These are all very traditional and common roles for the carbuilder in the transit industry.

The one somewhat unusual, but explainable, aspect of the OIW organizational arrangement is that OIW itself has not assumed the role of overall electrical designer and systems integrator but instead has ceded this critical role to Elin, its major supplier of the propulsion system and related hardware. A subject of much discussion in Section 6 and elsewhere in this report, OIW’s basic rationale for this approach is that their core strength lies primarily in the mechanical side of the work and that they are better served initially by turning over the car electrical and systems integration work to a firm experienced in that area than by trying to grow the expertise overnight.

4.2 Major Suppliers and Location of Work

As is typical of most rail vehicle contracts, many of the major systems and components on the car are contracted out by the carbuilder. The following table provides a listing of the major suppliers and their main manufacturing location for the COP contract. All these suppliers, with the exception of Miles Fiberglass, have experience and history in the rail transit field, and most provided similar hardware on the Inekon streetcars and/or the Prototype streetcar. Miles Fiberglass, a local Portland area firm, provided the fiberglass end shell for the Prototype vehicle constructed by OIW.


Figure 4-1 United Streetcar Organization Chart


Major Suppliers

Supplier System Location

Bode GMbh Doors Kassel, Germany

CTS Servis Bridgeplate Podebrady, Czech Republic

Elin EGB Propulsion Vienna, Austria

Knorr Brake Corporation Friction Brakes Westminster, MD

Miles Fiberglass & Composites End Shell Clackamas, OR

Penn Machine Company Truck Assembly Blairsville, PA

Saft Battery Battery Valdosta, GA

Thermoking HVAC Prague, Czech Republic

Vecom USA Communications Tampa, FL


5. Management Experience and Capabilities

Resumes of the majority of managers and key staff identified on the organization chart in Section 4 are provided in Appendix C. A quick review of this documentation finds the following:

• Excluding the Prototype project, only one OIW staff person has actual prior rail transit experience, in either design or manufacturing.

• Several of the OIW staff worked on the Prototype project and gained directly relevant experience from that involvement.

• Elin management identified on the chart have substantial rail transit experience.

• Several of the OIW staff, including the Program Manager, have recently come to OIW from Freightliner, a division of Daimler Trucks North America which manufactures heavy road trucks and has been downsizing in the Portland area in the last few years.

• The Program Manager has been involved in the design and manufacturing of large road vehicles, buses and trucks, for almost 25 years.

• Almost all of the OIW design and engineering staff come from a mechanical engineering, CADD, or manufacturing background; there is a dearth of electrical engineering experience in-house on the team.


6. Design

6.1 Internal Capacity

6.1.1 Mechanical Engineering

OIW has assembled a large Mechanical Team for the design of the Streetcar. Currently, the team consists of seven fulltime people and four contractors. The Mechanical Team is made up of experienced, educated, mechanical engineers and designers. Several members, engineers and designers, have migrated to OIW from Freightliner and have considerable experience working in the automotive and trucking industry. OIW was able to retain four Team members from the prototype Streetcar, an additional member is now working as their ERP system administrator.

The Mechanical Team has been divided up into adequate groups to cover the structural and packaging requirements of the vehicle design.

The streetcar trucks, underframe, body shell, and all mechanical systems are designed with CATIA® Computer Aided Design software. For this report, and to illustrate the design process, LTK traced the steps taken by the OIW lead designer of the Motor Truck Assembly.

The designer started with the original Skoda paper drawings, keeping the general configuration and dimensional envelope. He first establishes the quantity and shape of each steel part used in the truck assembly, drawing and placing these parts into a three dimensional space within the computer field. When done, an exact 3-D model has been established in the computer of the welded truck frame. The designer continues by adding wheels and axles, gearboxes, motors, springs, etc. Even the smallest detail of nuts and bolts eventually becomes part of the model. It is now possible to look at the complete truck from any angle, and thus examine clearances in the configuration including clearances between parts.

In parallel with this effort is the choice of American steel sizes (thickness of the plates of steel – changing from the metric steel sizes used by Skoda – to the English sizes available in America). Once the sizing has been established, the strength and grade of steel are chosen, again, a close approximation to the European steels used by Skoda. This information is entered into the computer.

With this comprehensive information entered into the CATIA program, it is then transmitted to Kolt Engineering in Germany, specialists in structural engineering using Finite Element Analysis (FEA) techniques. The physical loads that are required (by contract specification and industry standards) are added to the computerized information contained in the model. A “first run” computer analysis calculates the stress throughout the truck frame and provides a report to the designer indicating where he may have chosen a part thickness that has caused the part to be overstressed. The designer then adjusts his CATIA model design to accommodate those areas where heavier materials are shown to be required. The same process identifies where stresses are so low that the designer concludes the part to be heavier than needed. These he will adjust to lighter materials.

This process of CATIA design modeling / FEA stress analysis / then remodeling, may be repeated several times to establish the optimum materials. Once the designer is satisfied with the results, he is ready to begin producing drawings for the workshop. In the days before computers, the working drawings would have taken months to produce on the drawing board. Today, with the data for each part contained in computer memory, that effort is now measured


in days. The designer simply calls up the part, instructs the computer what size paper to print on, adds drawing numbers, titles, and notes - and the drawing is ready to print. At the point in time where designer is ready to begin the printing of drawings, the total design effort is now about 80% complete.

As of this reporting date, OIW has reached this 80% point with the truck frame. Other work such as the underframes, body shell, etc is well underway. We would estimate that engineering work progress ranges from 15% to 40% depending on what assembly you measure.

6.1.2 Electrical Engineering

Currently, the Streetcar Electrical Team consists of two summer interns, and several contractors. OIW has been looking for experienced electrical engineers for their Team, but has not been able to find any experienced engineers in the Portland Metro Area. Factors which may have attributed to their inability to hire electrical engineers include not looking within the rail industry across the country for recruitment, and a requirement for CATIA experience. CATIA, 3D design software, is not a normal tool used by electrical engineers.

While working on the new streetcar design, and lessons learned from the Prototype streetcar, OIW has realized the need to build an internal Electrical Team, and has pledged to start aggressively recruiting experienced engineers. In discussions with OIW management, they have indicated a renewed desire to recruit from a broader pool including other carbuilders, transit agencies, and consultants.

Several of the major sub-systems contracts have been finalized, e.g. propulsion, doors, communication system, and brakes. The integration of the control of all vehicle subsystems has not been officially started, and OIW has only provided high level concept drawings for the control system.

The electrical system design plan is to have Elin, the propulsion supplier, design the complete electrical control system for the streetcar, integrating the various subsystems. Elin will produce vehicle control concept drawings, and specifications for each part of the design. Once Elin has completed the concept drawings, OIW, in-house or by contractor (Wunderlich-Malec), will produce manufacturing drawings and Bill of Material (BOM) for the control system, with oversight and approval from Elin.

6.1.3 Systems Integration

Systems integration can be broken into three parts: mechanical integration, electrical integration and overall vehicle integration.

Mechanical integration is OIW’s strongest suite, they have personnel with the tools and experience, and their plan for the design is modern and should be successful.

For the electrical integration they have opted to have Elin, their propulsion supplier, fulfill this function. This idea has many benefits, since the propulsion system interacts with many other systems on the vehicle, since a safe functioning vehicle depends on a properly designed interface with the propulsion system, and since the propulsion system typically provides the most analogous capability to that of a vehicle central control unit.

The overall vehicle integration is not clearly identified in OIW’s design plan. Even with Elin’s involvement, it is our assessment that OIW needs to have an in-house, experienced rail vehicle


integration engineer, responsible for the overall function of the streetcar. The person should have experience with design, test, and commission of a rail vehicle.

6.1.4 Tools

OIW has purchased several software programs to aid in the design of the streetcar. They have purchased several “seats” of CATIA. OIW is currently setting up Smarteam, a Product Lifecycle Management (PLM), including a Product Data Management (PDM) system, which they will use to maintain detailed data about the design of the Streetcar. Smarteam will be integrated with an Enterprise Resource Planning system (ERP), Oracle JD Edwards EnterpriseOne, so purchasing, warehousing, and production, will have access to the requirements and document for the Streetcar Design.

Currently, OIW has no in-house electrical design or electrical layout software. OIW is planning to purchase, or acquire by contract with a consultant, Electronic Design Automation (EDA) or Electronic Computer Aided Design (ECAD) software. The EDA or ECAD software will be used to make manufacturing drawings, wiring tables and schematics, from the electrical design.

6.2 Role of Elin

OIW has been finalizing a contract with Elin to design the electrical control system, vehicle system integration and supply of the major electrical system components: propulsion system, auxiliary inverters, and low voltage power supply (LVPS). Elin will be responsible for the complete electrical design, approving components, layout, etc.

6.3 Role of Third Parties

OIW is negotiating with a local firm, Wunderlich-Malec, to provide electrical engineering services to the Streetcar Project. Their engineers will take the conceptual drawings and specifications that Elin produces and develop manufacturing drawings and BOMs for OIW. A concern is that Wunderlich-Malec has no particular rail transit experience and could bring industrial design practices and standards to tasks which demand more rigorous approaches or transit-specific approaches. We understand that OIW is also exploring the use of a Czech specialty firm that assisted them on the Prototype project to replace or work in combination with Wunderlich-Malec. This area, the development of production level electrical drawings, bears the need for close attention as the design process progresses.

6.4 Summary

The streetcar design plan that OIW has presented shows progress in their understanding of designing rail vehicles, yet some areas of their plan need to be adjusted or augmented. Since being awarded the City of Portland Streetcar Loop contract, OIW has been progressively adding personnel to their Streetcar Design Team. They have assembled a good mechanical design team, having supplied them with modern design tools and technology. The electrical design team is inadequate in that OIW needs in-house designers. While Elin is a great resource, OIW needs to have experienced rail vehicle staff to control and supervise their contractors, at a minimum. Additionally, OIW needs to identify a vehicle integration engineer; this person should be an OIW employee with sufficient rail vehicle experience.


7. Manufacturing

7.1 Transit Specific Manufacturing Experience

OIW did not have transit vehicle manufacturing experience when they began the streetcar program in late 2006 and early 2007. As a first step, OIW joined in a partnership with a Czech streetcar manufacturer, Skoda. The agreement with Skoda included the use of the Skoda car design for a complete U.S. based manufacturing program and the guidance of Skoda engineers and technicians who would come to the OIW workshop for hands on teaching and demonstration during the building of a Prototype car. The concept of the Prototype was to build the car without substantial design changes, with one notable exception, i.e. the cosmetic redesign of the car end fairings to produce a look unique to OIW and provide brand recognition. This section of this report describes the Prototype streetcar learning experience and our assessment of OIW’s preparedness for production of vehicles for the Portland Streetcar System. The City of Portland (COP) has a current production order for five streetcars and options, and will take ownership of the Prototype at some time in the future.

From a technical and manufacturing strategy, the concept of the Prototype project was to build an understanding of streetcar production using the model of an existing, proven, streetcar design. To do this, OIW sent a team of both engineering and manufacturing individuals to the Skoda workshops in Plzen, Czech Republic. OIW followed streetcars through the manufacturing process and held technical meetings with the Skoda engineers.

Once back in America, the OIW team began the process of breaking down the Skoda drawings for material purchase and production planning. During the Prototype program there were several “lessons learned” that are worthy of discussion:

• OIW had planned to use American steel and welding materials, coupled with American welding procedures. Early in the process it was thought that an equivalent American Steel grade and a welding procedure could be cross referenced to the European steels in use by Skoda. OIW purchased software (EquisGold) that is commonly used to convert the material grades and standards in use around the world. However, upon further investigation OIW came to the conclusion that this would not be possible. They learned that the various structural tests performed on truck and body frame members would most likely be voided with the change in materials, and they concluded that the metric to English conversion of sizes and thicknesses could put this early plan at further risk. They correctly concluded that their best alternative was to have Skoda purchase and deliver European steel and welding materials needed for the prototype cars. OIW then turned their attention to locating American suppliers for other materials that could easily be converted.

• OIW invested significantly in jigs and fixtures for the Prototype vehicle. Since the Prototype was a one car order, the cost of extensive body and frame fixtures was difficult to rationalize economically. However, OIW stated to LTK engineers that the learning experience should encompass the design of the tooling as well as the design of the vehicle. This was a very good decision and the tooling was designed such that it will be readily transferable to the production vehicle program.

• There were many Skoda flaws in the drawings. It appears to LTK that Skoda communication from the shop floor back to the engineering group was not the best. These are the type of drawing errors that workmen in the Skoda shop probably compensated for using their experience on this vehicle, but these compensating actions


were not readily visible to OIW during their time in Plzen. Further complicating this situation was the language barrier. Very few shop workers speak fluent English, most speak only Czech. These flaws plagued the progress in the OIW shop, but each was worked out with re-manufactured parts or by other means. For any critical non-fit issues and/or vehicle performance issues, OIW consulted with Skoda engineers to resolve the conflicts

• The most difficult of the Skoda problems was the wiring schematics and other electrical documents provided by Skoda. As opposed to PSI cars number 1 through 7, in which Skoda used the propulsion package of components from Elin in Austria, the Prototype car was built using Skoda Electrical Division components and systems. The experience was that the Skoda design was not sufficiently mature and the documents lacked accuracy and depth. To augment capability in this area, OIW hired an independent electrical engineer from the Czech Republic who had previously performed electrical design and drafting for both Skoda and Inekon Trams.

• However, some problems remain in the Prototype electrical systems. The vehicle is basically functional but has not been fully tested. Some problem areas have remained without solution or resolution to this day. OIW has recently elected to recall the Prototype to its facility for further refinement.

• OIW has also elected to return to the Elin propulsion package for the Portland Loop cars. A substitution proposal has been agreed to in principle by the COP, and a formal change order is planned to be executed in June 2010.

OIW demonstrated a commitment and resolve, during the Prototype project, to learn from even the worst experiences. On balance, we commend them for making the tough decisions, even at the additional costs incurred. However, it is our opinion that deterioration in relations with Skoda and lack of in-house experience in system integration and testing contributed substantially to a half-finished product.

7.2 Internal Capacity

OIW’s prime experience has historically been heavy steel fabrication. Although technically classified as a “job shop” they differ on several key attributes of what is generally thought of as a job shop fabricator. These differences are:

• A significant amount of the OIW work is very large, and very specialized products (see Figure 7-1). These products include hydro-electric dam gates, movable bridge elements and the complex power transmission machinery for bridge actuation, nuclear containment vessels, and missile silo doors. Common in these sophisticated products is the highly specialized knowledge and shop machinery necessary to produce such products. These products put OIW in a market niche where the competition is limited.

• Most of these products are mechanically actuated machinery elements, and require electrical controls. OIW routinely provides the electrical controls with many of these products. This takes OIW out of the realm of being simply a steel production shop.

• Of the more sophisticated products they have built, some such as the Navy fast assault boats, require numerous mechanical and electrical systems; putting them on par with the complexity of the streetcar project. These projects are also built in small lot quantities. Order sizes of 3 to 10 units are common and another similarity with streetcar production.


Figure 7-1 Scale of Typical OIW Fabrication Work The OIW primary manufacturing facility and corporate headquarters is located in Clackamas, Oregon (a suburb of Portland); with an additional marine fabrication facility located on the Columbia River in Vancouver, Washington. This section of the report focuses on the Clackamas facility where the streetcars are to be built.

The Clackamas facility is comprised of 250,000 square feet of production space under roof, and situated on a 38 acre site. Of the total, 34,000 square feet is office space. Current employment is approximately 400 individuals. This employment breaks down to approximately:

• 120 non-manufacturing and/or supervisory positions, and 280 hourly manufacturing workers

• About 160 hourly individuals working day shift hours

• About 90 hourly individuals working swing shift hours

• About 30 hourly individuals working grave yard shift hours

Manufacturing capacity at OIW is not constrained by facility size in relation to the number of employees. Rather, what constrains OIW is the size of products to be built and size of machinery necessary to accomplish the required manufacturing steps. OIW will run out of facility space due to product size, long before they run short of employees. Based on industry estimating practices, a facility of the Clackamas size could support upwards of 600 people per shift – but only with considerably smaller products.

LTK TCC Final August 17, 2010 Page 23

Figure 7-2 Layout of Streetcar Assembly Building


Figure 7-3 Test Track


As we view the current OIW product range and order file, without the streetcar, the facility is running at perhaps 60% to 70% of capacity. Although day shifting would most likely remain at current levels, an upturn in the market would demand higher levels of welding and machining operations on swing and graveyard shifts in order to reach full capacity.

With the introduction of the streetcar, OIW has built a new machine and fabrication building that adds 14,400 square feet (60 ft x 240 ft). With this addition, they relocated portions of existing operations to the new building, thus freeing an existing building at the far south end of their property for streetcar assembly (also 60 ft x 240 ft). This existing building will be renovated for streetcar assembly work, allows for a separate street entrance for streetcar employees, and is located near vacant property where the streetcar test track will be built. See Figures 7-2 and 7-3 for layouts of the streetcar assembly building and test track.

Streetcar parts production will be performed in other parts of the facility.

7.2.1 Production Engineering

OIW has, at any given time, between 20 and 30 individuals involved in manufacturing engineering, design review for production, and production planning. This number will vary by number of projects in planning, and the fact that individuals routinely transition from a general planning role to specific project positions and will follow these projects through to completion (very common with schedulers and tooling designers).

In the United Streetcar Division, a manufacturing planning and leadership team has been assembled under the direction of Mr. Phil Smith (designated as the streetcar Manufacturing Manager). Mr. Smith has five individuals assigned to key areas of the manufacturing process. Mr. Smith was also in this same capacity during the Prototype car design and manufacturing, albeit, with a smaller staff. He is the individual responsible for the production of the cars and the test track.

7.2.2 Tooling and Fixtures

We compared the manufacturing requirements of the Skoda design to the capacity and capability of the machine tools, welding processes, and the general manufacturing knowledge base of the facility and employees. The company does not lack in any of these areas. In fact, in our analysis, several elements become obvious:

• OIW has various capabilities that neither Skoda nor Inekon has, e.g. the robotic welding system, which OIW may elect to apply to the truck frames and their extensive machine milling capacity.

• As previously mentioned, OIW has invested heavily in tooling and fixtures for fabrication of the carshell components and truck frame (see Figures 7-4 and 7-5 as examples of fixtures used for welding operations).


• Regarding milling capacity, refer to Figure 7-6. This machine is capable of machining all necessary surfaces in one set-up on the milling table, a capability not present in either the Skoda or Inekon factories. In fact, the sub-contractors they use for such work have much smaller machines and require multiple set-ups to accomplish the same work.

Figure 7-6 Milling Machine for Truck Frame

• Many fabricators must sub-contract work because the product exceeds machine capability. With OIW, the machine capability and capacity far exceeds product requirements for streetcars. OIW would be much more likely to sub-contract small formed parts, or light weight parts, simply because the quantity of small machine tools is limited. OIW has well established relationships with numerous small parts suppliers, when their capacity becomes limited.

• OIW freely sub-contracts those items where another supplier’s knowledge in the transit industry provides benefits. A prime example is Penn Machine, a Pennsylvania based supplier of wheels, axles and gear boxes. OIW will also use them to assemble the OIW built truck frames with the associated mechanical components and electric motor. Penn

Figure 7-4 Production Fixture for Roof Section

Figure 7-5 Precision Fixture for Heavy Weldments


Machine then runs the final assembly for gear box break in, and ships the completed motor truck assembly back to OIW.

7.2.3 Mechanical Fabrication and Assembly

As mentioned above, OIW is in process of renovating of an existing building for the assembly of the streetcars. The building will also house the offices for the streetcar engineering group and parts storage.

The production layouts in this building are designed to produce 24 cars per year. As market volume exceeds 24 cars, the OIW plan is to construct a mirror image building and assembly line which would share a common wall with the existing building. Their ultimate market prediction is 48 cars per year.

LTK has performed a basic industrial engineering analysis of their 24 car plan. We have found it to be more than adequate. The space and production plan will work to satisfy their production goal.

Also noteworthy is the investment they will make in infrastructure. Within the assembly building they will build permanent platforms for the extensive work needed on top of the cars (the prototype was built with temporary scaffolding). They will purchase two new cranes and build the crane runway. They also plan to provide an area for continued work on the prototype car, and ultimately this area will serve other development work as their market opens wider.

7.2.4 Painting

OIW finish car painting is our only major concern with the OIW manufacturing plan. At present, OIW does not have a finish paint facility. The Prototype car was prime painted and corrosion coatings were applied at the OIW Vancouver facility. The car was then transported to the TriMet light rail maintenance facility in Gresham, Oregon, and finish painted using TriMet personnel. Although TriMet expresses a willingness to assist OIW where and when practical, this is a situation that can not be viewed as a production solution. We believe TriMet has also made this point clear.

During interviews with the OIW CEO and President, they stated they are looking at three alternatives:

• Continue to prime paint and apply corrosion coatings at their Vancouver facility then transport each of the three body sections (per car) to an outside contractor with a paint booth large enough to accommodate these car shells. This would typically be a facility that does truck and bus painting, of which there are several in the Portland area (in fact one such supplier is Columbia Body, very near to the OIW Clackamas plant.

• Partner with a local established finish paint contractor and build a paint facility on, or adjacent to, the OIW Clackamas site.

• Purchase a paint booth and develop a wholly owned paint facility within the Clackamas complex. With no partner company, OIW would hire painters and run this operation. This alternative needs to consider other painting needs of the company as a whole, and this analysis is in progress.


The paint and finish are certainly a major element in the quality of their product. In reaching a decision how to proceed, OIW is considering cost, logistics of staging shipment of car shells, handling and potential damage to the car shell and the paint, and quality control of finish painting.

7.2.5 Equipment Installation and Wiring

During the building of the Prototype, OIW was able to demonstrate their ability to do a good job in the general fitting of mechanical and electrical equipment into the car body. In an inspection of the Prototype, one will not find obvious signs of misfit equipment, i.e. such things as double sets of mounting holes, holes enlarged for alignment, cutting or trimming of structures to accommodate equipment.

However, the car was not built without significant problems, as was to be expected in a prototype program undertaken by a firm brand new to the rail car industry. Each of the numerous wiring and electrical problems encountered has very detailed explanations. We only recite two of them here, to demonstrate to the reader the nature of the problems:

• Quite common was the problem encountered in the electrical locker directly behind the operator. OIW relied on Skoda drawings to manufacture the backplane and structural framing of the bulkhead. The structural framing was firmly in place in the vehicle when the electrical wiring phase began. Over in the electric shop, the mounting of the electrical relays and other components had begun. But when the pre-assembled backplane was brought to the car, it would not fit in the allowed space. Most likely, a known problem in the Skoda shop where workmen routinely made adjustments from what was shown on the drawings. But apparently this information was not communicated to OIW. OIW answered this problem by remanufacturing the backplane and changing the component layout to fit the available space.

• OIW purchased electrical wire to American standards. The insulation thickness on American wire is slightly larger than the comparable European standard. The main wire trays in the vehicle were built to the Skoda drawings. Once the wire bundles were in the process of being laid in the trays, it became apparent that the trays were becoming too full to handle all the wire. OIW answered this with some re-routing of some of the wire, and modifications to some of the critical fit areas.

As mentioned above, these are typical of the problems encountered in the development of a new product for a company seeking to expand its horizons. However, in a volume production environment, OIW will need to be proactive and find and solve these problems early.

If there is one shortcoming in the current manufacturing plan, we see it in the area of producing manufacturing drawings and instructions for installation of electrical wiring and electrical hardware. As discussed in Section 6, it does not yet appear that OIW has reached critical mass in capacity or capability to successfully conduct the translation of electrical schematics from Elin into shop floor wiring diagrams.

7.2.6 Outfitting and Finishing

In spite of the lack of a paint facility, the Prototype car manufacture was of very good quality, certainly meeting the general acceptance standards of the industry. The car shell, underframe welding, and dimensional control were better than what Skoda has demonstrated, and the interior fit and finish were very good. Based on the Prototype, we do not have any significant concerns of the ability of OIW to present a well made vehicle with regard to fit and finishes.


7.2.7 Project Control

OIW has produced a draft document called the Configuration Control Process. This has been presented to LTK as Portland Contract CDRL 17-5. It is currently under detail review and our final acceptance of it has not yet been made. However, for this report, we will make these comments:

• On balance, the document looks complete and well written. It contains the manual paper system flow chart and a systems approach to assuring documents are well controlled

• It contains descriptions of the contract administration and purchasing cycle, engineering change control, and sample documents for these activities.

Our detailed review of this document is not complete at this writing, but cursory review is that the document does demonstrate an understanding of the principles and requirements of the project. It appears at this time to be a document that will be accepted with possible comment, but certainly will make a good foundation for the final project control procedure to be accepted.

OIW has also submitted QA/QC Plans, an Inspection and Production Hold Point Plan, and other related documents required under the Portland Contract list of CDRL’s. This paper flow has just started, and is in the process of review. Suffice it to say that we are seeing the proper steps being taken.

In preparation for this TCC review, LTK has also conducted extensive interviews with OIW management, engineering, and manufacturing personnel. The subjects of inventory control, car history books, and numerous topics regarding staff support for the manufacturing process have all been covered. We see no issues indicating lack of ability and/or knowledge.

7.3 Role of Elin in Manufacturing

Elin EBG of Vienna, Austria (a division of Siemens) will be manufacturing the power and propulsion equipment, and a significant number of electrical components. Elin is an experienced propulsion supplier with a demonstrated track record and has provided systems for the 19 Czech built streetcars in the U.S. for Portland, Tacoma, Seattle, and Washington DC. In addition, Elin has provided systems for light rail vehicles in Seattle and Phoenix and numerous cities in Europe. Specifically Elin will be providing the following equipment:

• Propulsion inverters and traction control units

• Braking resistors

• Auxiliary inverter

• Low voltage power supply

• High speed circuit breaker

• Master controller

• Network modules

• Train operator display


While Section 6 and other sections of this report address design roles and issues, from a strictly manufacturing view, we were satisfied with the emphasis and direction that OIW management is taking to avoid electrical manufacturing problems and the role given to Elin.

7.4 Role of Other Third Party Suppliers

OIW has numerous third party suppliers that will all need control and monitoring. This situation is not abnormal, as no car builder is 100% vertically integrated in their manufacture. Compared to Siemens or Skoda who produce their own electrical and propulsion equipment in addition to carshells and trucks, OIW has more third party content. When compared to Inekon Trams, who has used Elin and must sub-contract heavy fabrication such as the trucks and underframes, OIW has a greater self perform content. We do not see any fatal flaws in their approach to the use of third party content and generally believe they have chosen established and experienced suppliers.


8. Procurement

In the industries in which it has been working for some time, OIW has well established procedures in place and substantial experience in procurement of equipment, hardware, and materials from vendors around the globe. While their relationship with transit suppliers and vendors is only formative, clearly there is substantial carry-over in procurement practices from other industries in which they have participated.

8.1 Major Supplier Contracts

As shown in Section 4, OIW is in the process of contracting with approximately ten companies for major systems in the vehicle. A sample contract for one of these is provided in Appendix D. Only Elin among the major suppliers is a new face to OIW and did not participate in the Prototype project.

8.2 Procurement Tools

In addition to the major contracts, literally several hundred purchase orders will be issued for supply of hardware, components, materials, and supplies to build the streetcars. Virtually all businesses use software packages to manage their procurement processes, as does OIW. Just recently OIW has purchased an Oracle-based J D Edwards software package which it is in the process of implementing for its streetcar projects. Among other tasks this package will track status of all purchased and manufactured parts and assemblies, provide inventory control, and help assure that the correct items appear at the correct places on the production floor at the correct times.

8.3 Summary

In summary, OIW is well equipped and well experienced in procurement practices and has the necessary capacity and capability to satisfactorily deliver this aspect of the streetcar project.


9. Quality Assurance/Quality Control

Similar to its procurement experience and practices, in the industries in which it has been working for some time, OIW has well established procedures in place and substantial experience in performing quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) functions, both for materials and equipment it purchases and for assemblies and products it produces in-house. Many of the industries in which it works, e.g. defense or nuclear, have stringent QA/QC requirements, and OIW has developed a strong QA/QC ethic over the years. While their relationship with transit suppliers and vendors is only formative and their transit fabrication practices not yet well established, clearly there is substantial carry-over in QA/QC practices from other industries in which they have participated.

9.1 Staffing

Typically of issue are the extent and depth of QA/QC activity on a project and the degree to which it operates independently from the pressures of production.

OIW indicates that four to eight QC staff will be involved in the streetcar work, albeit not necessarily full time (four positions are shown on the United Streetcar organization chart in Section 4). Although experienced in other product lines, none of these staff has any significant exposure to rail transit cars. OIW has stated that they intend to actively pursue hiring QC personnel with rail transit inspection experience.

OIW also indicates that it is standard operating procedure for its QA/QC department to report directly to the President of the company, thus insulating and maintaining independence from its production or manufacturing departments.

9.2 QA/QC Plan

As part of its CDRL requirements, OIW must submit for approval a QA/QC Manual, a project-specific QA/QC Plan, an Inspection Plan, a list of Inspection Hold Points (see below), and major supplier QA/QC Plans. These are in process and indicate that OIW is well-versed in the generic QA/QC field and its practices.

9.3 First Article Inspections

As part of its Inspection Plan, all first article inspections (FAI) of major systems and components must be identified and scheduled. This process is common in the transit industry and is no stranger to OIW. We see no issue in this regard.

9.4 In-process Inspections

In the manufacture of a product as complicated as a streetcar, obviously there will many, many points along the path where checks and inspections, both by OIW QA/QC staff and by COP


representatives, will occur. The Inspection Plan, CDRL 17-9, is intended to capture when and where those checks and inspections occur and eventually provide the procedures that guide the checks and inspections. It is our assessment that OIW understands the requirements and with minor augmentation of its staff will have the capacity and capability to satisfactorily conduct the program. Certainly OIW’s capacity and capability in the areas of welding inspection and mechanical assembly inspection are satisfactory as the company is deep in experience in these types of activities. In our opinion capability of inspection of electrical and wiring installations to transit standards may need to be bolstered.

9.5 Car History Books

Commonplace in the transit industry is the requirement that salient points in the manufacture and test of each vehicle be captured in a Car History Book, and ownership and maintenance of these books are usually the province of the QA/QC department until they are turned over to the client. OIW was introduced to this requirement on the Prototype and appears to understand it. We see no cause for concern regarding the Car History Book.


10. Testing and Commissioning

This activity is critical in vehicle procurements; it is also the last step in a long process that started years earlier. While there are issues that surface during design, manufacturing, and assembly that result in schedule slippages, the completion date is usually fixed. This means the time available for testing and commissioning constantly shrinks, adding pressure on the commissioning crew to finish the vehicle on time for delivery.

To bring the project to a successful completion a solid test plan, good procedures, and skilled personnel are necessary. These elements as they pertain to OIW and their sub-contractor have been evaluated in this section. A pre-requisite for testing and commissioning is a good QA program, that ensures the vehicles are complete and that meets the requirements for workmanship and materials.

10.1 Master Test Plan

Preparation of a master test plan (MTP) is a contract requirement and should contain details of individual tests to be run during the testing cycle. The MTP categorizes and describes each test, outlines pass-fail criteria, and indicates planned dates for the tests and the status of test results. The MTP is a living document that provides a quick reference for what has been tested, what has failed, and what is left to test.

The types of testing required are;

• Qualification tests to verify that all design requirements have been met at operating and environmental extremes. Qualification tests are performed on components, systems, and completed vehicles and typically are limited to one unit.

• Conformance tests to demonstrate that each unit has been manufactured and assembled correctly and operates within specified limits at ambient conditions. Tests are performed on components, assemblies and systems either universally or at some sample level.

• Vehicle level conformance test to demonstrate that each vehicle is ready for revenue service.

OIW has submitted a Master Test Plan (MTP) for the Portland Streetcar Loop project. The submittal was initially disapproved as it only identified the generic tests listed in Section 14 of technical requirements and did not reflect the specifics needed to actually be a master test plan for OIW’s vehicle. However, a follow-on submittal is improved, and we are confident that an acceptable MTP will be completed well in advance of the initial qualification tests.

Below is a detailed assessment of the different test categories as they pertain to OIW’s Portland Streetcar Loop project.

10.1.1 Materials and Standards Tests

OIW is aware of the materials and standards tests required by the contract, however, all of these tests should, and will be, identified in the MTP to facilitate scheduling and tracking and ensure all requirements are met and accounted for.


• Smoke, Flame and Toxicity (SFT) – OIW has identified some materials to be tested, but the list was initially incomplete. OIW’s sub-contracts extend the contractual requirements to conduct SFT tests and provide test results to document compliance.

• Materials tests and certificates are something OIW is very familiar with as they manufacture equipment for government, military and the nuclear industry. OIW have existing procedures in place to ensure proper handling and use of materials. OIW will purchase material (steel) and provide this to sub-contractors to make sure the components will be made with the proper materials.

• Federal, state and local codes and regulations are accounted for in design and manufacturing at OIW and sub-contractors.

• Compliance with industry standards and contract requirements is addressed in quality processes and test procedures.

10.1.2 Proof-of-Design or Qualification Tests

OIW has done a commendable job in identifying the required qualification tests in the MTP. Some additional detail is needed for clarification as some of the qualification tests are addressed in quality assurance activities and first article inspections. Qualification testing of components and assemblies provided by sub-suppliers needs to be addressed in more detail, particularly where off-the-shelf components are used and a waiver is all that is required to meet contract requirements.

10.1.3 Conformance Tests

Conformance testing of components, assemblies and systems was initially missing detail for sub-contractors. The contracts OIW lets have the requirements for this testing, but at this early point it does not appear that OIW has received much information in this regard. In meetings with OIW, system integration was stressed as a critical activity and early definition of interface and performance requirements is a key element to ensure a successful completion of the project. OIW needs to assert a firm control of the conformance testing that is scheduled to take place at sub-contractors’ facilities by having a robust source inspection plan and schedule. This area will be watched with special attention as the project proceeds.

10.1.4 Vehicle Acceptance Tests

OIW has learned several valuable lessons from the Prototype Streetcar project and this aspect of the test plan is fairly well in place. The successful implementation as mentioned above is contingent on a good system integration effort during design, manufacturing and assembly. OIW has contracted with Elin to perform much of the electrical integration work; the weak link appears to be OIW’s lack of skilled individuals in understanding and translating Elin’s integration activities regarding the different vehicle systems. A small but capable in-house electrical group is necessary to coordinate Elin’s work with manufacturing and assembly work at OIW.

OIW is adding a test track (loop) at the manufacturing facility. The benefit of this can not be overstated. The test track will allow all vehicles to be fully debugged before leaving the facility, as all support resources are readily available and testing can be done 24/7 without the operational restrictions typically encountered at the agency where the existing service has top priority.


10.1.5 Status

OIW has started the planning of test and commissioning activities. The project is still in the early phases of design and not much detailed information is available at this point. The MTP has been reviewed’ sent back to OIW to be revised to include additional details, and returned with information. The necessity in developing a comprehensive commissioning plan early on has been stressed to OIW with specific recommendations how to accomplish this, and it appears that OIW is responding.

10.2 Procedures

OIW has standardized test procedures and reports. At this time the test procedures for vehicle acceptance tests are partially complete as they were developed for the Prototype Streetcar. As indicated above and required by the contract, all test procedures for component, assembly, system and vehicle level tests must be developed and submitted for review and approval prior to testing.

Many system being utilized on the streetcars are existing designs that will require minor adaptation to meet the specific requirements of the Portland Loop vehicles, and test procedures for this equipment have in most cases already been developed.

10.3 Testing/Commissioning Staffing Plan

10.3.1 In-house Staff

Testing of streetcars require knowledge of everything on the vehicle. OIW has the mechanical and structural side of testing very well covered, while on the electrical side more in-house staff and experience are needed. OIW is acutely aware of this situation, and they are actively searching for individuals with this unique experience. However, Elin is under contract to cover the immediate shortcomings in this area.

OIW did acquire some experience with streetcar testing on the Prototype project and these individuals form the core for testing and commissioning on the Portland Loop project.

Further increase in OIW’s electrical group will also benefit testing as the systems engineers will be able to provide commissioning support, particularly in areas of microprocessor controlled systems, network communication and software.

10.3.2 Role of Elin in Testing

The addition of Elin as the systems integrator provides substantial confidence that the problems experienced with the Prototype can and will be addressed in a successful manner. Elin has extensive mass transit vehicle experience and, as the propulsion supplier for the existing Portland streetcars, they are ahead of the curve and already know the basic vehicle and the operating conditions.

OIW and Elin have worked out a very detailed list of tasks Elin will be responsible for (lessons learned from working with Skoda on the Prototype). In addition to providing the main systems and doing the systems integration, Elin will also provide training of OIW’s testing and


commissioning personnel. The plan is for Elin to commission the first two vehicles while OIW personnel assists and then OIW will test the third vehicle on their own with Elin there to provide support as needed. This arrangement seems to be a very good way for OIW to gain the necessary knowledge and experience while keeping the project on schedule.

10.3.3 Role of Other Parties

OIW will outsource some testing to specialty firms for things like smoke, flame and toxicity testing. In addition, suppliers are by contract required to assist in component, assembly, system and integration testing. The City of Portland, TriMet and consultants will be available to guide and support testing, which is something OIW repeatedly has acknowledged and welcomed. OIW is very open to learn and wants to do this right the first time recognizing this is a team effort and cooperation will benefit OIW as much as Portland Streetcar. This attitude is refreshing as many car builders typically see the client as an obstruction that just makes life difficult for them.

10.4 Internal/External Testing Facilities

The last station in the assembly line is set up to perform vehicle level testing. OIW is adding 750 Vdc power to this area to power the vehicles for the static vehicle tests. The new test track OIW is building at their facility will provide a means of vehicle testing that is unique in the industry. The track is laid out in a loop to facilitate continuous running to shake down the vehicles prior to being shipped to Portland Streetcar. This will save a lot of time in the commissioning process, which as mentioned at the beginning of this section, is a commodity when there is very limited time left to meet the contract delivery schedule.


11. Additional Considerations

11.1 Scheduling Capabilities and Schedule Adherence

As far as the basic principles and practices of scheduling work for complex, multi-disciplinary projects, OIW is well versed in the mechanics and fluent in several scheduling languages. However, the essence of a good schedule must be grounded in intimate knowledge of the particulars, e.g. how long certain work takes, what must be precedent and what must be successor, and what really matters vs. what can be discounted.

With the approval of the Elin substitution request, a major re-calibration of the contract schedule is underway, as of the time of this report. OIW has prepared a new baseline schedule (see Appendix E) which basically extends the contract schedule and vehicle delivery dates by approximately six months, with contractual delivery running through the end of 2012. Our initial review of this schedule indicates that it is moderately aggressive but achievable. Interim durations are reasonable, and there is a substantial amount of time allocated for qualification testing of the first car.

It seems apparent that OIW progress since NTP in August of 2009 was considerably negatively impacted by its predilection with a proposed Rockwell propulsion substitution, and it is our opinion that, with this issue behind it, OIW has a reasonable chance of meeting its re-calibrated schedule.

11.2 Capacity to Manage Multiple Streetcar Projects Concurrently

Although OIW is starting small with the Portland Loop cars and the COT cars, its ability to manage and deliver these two contracts mostly concurrently will be to some not insignificant extent characterized by their commonality. The more the streetcars are alike, and the more follow-on orders are similar, the easier the design and manufacturing processes will be and the greater the chances of success and timely prosecution of the work will occur. At this very early stage in its development of the streetcar product, OIW simply does not have the scale or depth of experience to successfully handle substantially different designs and suppliers at the same time. Certainly there will always be some differences between cars, even for follow-on orders to the same customer, but an understandable goal at this early stage is to provide as common a vehicle as is practical.

11.3 Ability to Recognize Problem Areas Early

To a certain extent, the ability to recognize problem areas early, to be able to distinguish whether problems are big or small, and to be able to react quickly and effectively to solve problems are qualities that benefit from experience and perspective and are tempered by corporate attitude. At this time, no hard-and-fast assessment is made of these rather subjective qualities as they relate to OIW’s streetcar work except to say that OIW appears to recognize where it is on the experience spectrum and appears open to advice and counsel on various matters technical and non-technical.


11.4 Corporate Philosophy

Similar to the previous topic, “corporate philosophy” is an elusive term on which to pin hard-and-fast assessments. Suffice it to say that OIW appears to operate with a “can do” philosophy and seems to invest heavily in searching for new and better ways to do things.


12. Summary and Conclusions

The following points summarize this study:

• OIW is a specialty manufacturing company with considerable experience in producing large size, complicated products in small quantities across a wide range of industries.

• OIW generally has sufficient manufacturing facilities and various manufacturing practices, e.g. procurement. QA/QC, scheduling, which to some extent can carry over to the streetcar business.

• While this report did not investigate the financial details of OIW, we saw nothing that would indicate any concern regarding financial stability.

• OIW believes that the modern streetcar, as complex as it may be, is a logical extension of its capabilities to produce large, specialized products in limited quantities. OIW asserts that it can fill a niche in supplying orders of small quantities that may not be of sufficient interest to larger, more established carbuilders.

• The Prototype streetcar was OIW’s first venture into the rail car manufacturing business and demonstrated that the company can in fact build a modern streetcar to modern standards but has yet to demonstrate that its product is ready for revenue service.

• Despite a slow start due to a protracted focus on a Rockwell propulsion system

substitution, OIW and the COP have recently agreed to an Elin propulsion substitution and a revised schedule extending contractual delivery of the vehicles by approximately six months, through the end of 2012. It is LTK’s assessment that there is a reasonable likelihood that OIW can meet this revised schedule.

• OIW is assembling an in-house project team that draws heavily from former Freightliner

staff and to date appears strong on the mechanical side and weak on the electrical side. The addition of Elin as propulsion supplier and systems integrator significantly augments the electrical side, but we believe that OIW should also commit to build up in-house knowledge and experience on the electrical side.

• The OIW physical plant and equipment are more than adequate for the planned

streetcar production. Continued planning for a paint booth, dc power equipment, and the test track are aimed in the right direction, but each of these physical plant elements need to be implemented.

• On balance, we believe OIW exceeds the capability of Czech producers of the existing Portland streetcars in the critical area of mechanical fabrication, which is the core business for OIW.

• OIW’s plan to have Elin test and commission the first two vehicles then transition the responsibility to OIW testing staff is a good one.

• At this very early stage in its streetcar history, OIW’s ability to successfully manage and

deliver nearly concurrent streetcar projects for the COP and the COT is to some extent


dependent on the commonality of design and hardware between the two vehicles. While there are certainly differences in the requirements, OIW is making a concerted effort to align the designs as much as possible.

• On balance, with the addition of some qualified electrical engineering expertise, OIW has

technical capacity and capability in physical plant and personnel to design, manage, fabricate, test and commission the streetcars for the COP and for the COT.

Topics for Technical Capacity and Capability Review

of Oregon Iron Works (OIW) Technical Capacity

• Company Overview o History o Subsidiaries o Facilities o Products (railcar business as a percentage of total business) o Scale

• Organizational Structure and Capacity Related to Streetcar Work (need detailed org charts for each functional area with names of key people, total staff, how many assigned to railcar business, how many for Portland & Tucson projects)

o Design process Internal capacity (Engineers knowledgeable in railcar design - structural,

mechanical, electrical, system integration, system assurance) Role of Elin Role of additional third parties

o Manufacturing process Internal capacity (Engineers knowledgeable in railcar manufacturing /

assembly processes – for in-house manufacturing/assembly of cars & assemblies/sub-assemblies)

Role of Elin Role of additional third parties

o Procurement Major supplier contracts Minor supplier contracts Vendors Process for ordering of parts for production & spares in a timely manner Payment process & record of prompt payment to vendors

o Testing and commissioning Internal capacity (Engineers knowledgeable in railcar testing - mechanical,

electrical / electronic, system integration testing) Role of Elin On-site testing & commissioning staff for multiple projects Role of additional third parties

o Approximate labor pool for each major step and proportion of employees versus contractors on Streetcar Team

• Management Experience on Similar Projects o Pertinent projects and relevancy

• Management Qualifications o Project Manager resume o Design Manager resume o Chief Structural Engineer resume o Chief System Integration Engineer resume

LTK Final with PMO Comments 1 June 2, 2010

o Chief System Assurance Engineer resume o Production Manager resume o Testing and Commissioning Manager resume o QA Manager resume

• Staff Experience, Qualifications, and Certifications o Resumes of any key staff not covered above

• Design and Software Tools and Resources • Physical Plant and Equipment

o Principal features, size, nature, and adequacy of manufacturing physical plant for purpose

o Ownership of facilities o Equipment, jigs, and fixtures used in manufacturing process and comparison to

similar assembly facilities; welding equipment and controls o Evidence of documentation on the floor for production processes and instructions

for workers o Maintenance policies relating to the equipment and physical plant o Scheduled overhaul or major maintenance of manufacturing facilities o Extent of plant capacity in use o Safety record o Availability of 750 Vdc power supply in shop o Availability of general test equipment o Availability of facilities for vehicle dynamic testing

• Capacity to Manage Multiple Concurrent Streetcar Projects

Capability • Past Performance on Projects of Similar Nature and/or Complexity • Ability to Adapt Internal Resources and Processes to Streetcar Work

o Design capabilities o Standards o Work breakdown structure and work flow o Documentation requirements o Corporate Philosophy

• Mechanical Engineering • Electrical Engineering and Systems Integration • Manufacturing

o Production engineering o Mechanical fabrication and assembly o Painting o Ability to coordinate Procurement and Manufacturing o Equipment installation, wiring and termination o Outfitting and finishing

• QA/QC Plan & Procedures and documentation o QA/QC staff o Receiving inspection & source inspection programs o Non-compliance, segregation of rejected components & MRB processes o Quality audits for in-house & suppliers



o First Article Inspection program • Testing and Commissioning Policies, Procedures, and Documentation

o Current state of Streetcar Test Plan Previous projects approved, used, test plans and procedures Number of Test Procedures which will need to be revised or approved

o Internal/External testing facilities Component level testing Subsystem testing Static/Dynamic vehicle testing

o Plan for major proof-of-design tests o Testing/Commissioning Staff

Experience of in-house staff Experience of Elin Experience of other critical contractors (brakes, HVAC, trucks, doors etc.)

and suppliers • Ability to Recognize Problem Areas in Sufficient Time • Scheduling capabilities • Warranty Program

Financial Review* • Diversity of Product Lines • Revenues • Liabilities • Cash on Hand • Receivables • General Health

Notes: * Optional scope, may be performed by TriMet

Safety Program Summary: Oregon Iron Works Inc. is committed to providing a workplace free of recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause physical harm to any employee, guest, or visitor entering any OIW facility. To accomplish this, documented safety training is required for all OIW employees hired to perform production tasks. Training includes the following:

• Ladder safety • Overhead Crane and Rigging safety • Aerial Lift Equipment safety • Hazard Communication • Lock-out / Tag-out • Fall Protection Equipment use/inspection • Hearing Conservation program • Respiratory Protection • Eye Protection safety training • Bloodborne Pathogen safety • Injury/Near-Miss Reporting procedures • Fire safety • Emergency Evacuation procedures • Confined Space Entry • Scaffold safety

In addition to initial training, all production supervisors and employees attend weekly “toolbox safety meetings” which cover various safety and wellness topics. All training is documented and periodically reviewed for effectiveness and revised as necessary. To track and monitor safety performance, OIW’s TRIR (total recordable injury rate) is calculated weekly and updated on multiple safety performance boards located throughout the facility.

OIW Safety Performance 2006 – 2010

25.64

13.117.81

13.167.54

0.005.00

10.0015.0020.0025.0030.0035.0040.0045.00

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

TRR

11.03

7.79

5.096.21

2.82

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

DA

RT

Rat

e

5.193.54

1.35 1.46 0.94

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

TL R

ate

2008 National Averages: NAICS 332312

Total Recordable Rate (TRR): 9.9 Days Away/Restricted/Transferred (DART): 4.4 Time-Loss Case Rate (TL): 2.4

OIW Safety Performance 2006 – 2010

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Total Recordables

TRR

DART

Time Loss Case Rate

2008 National Averages: NAICS 332312

Total Recordable Rate (TRR): 9.9 Days Away/Restricted/Transferred (DART): 4.4 Time-Loss Case Rate (TL): 2.4

Project: 2422E

Printed: 04Jun10, 04:42PM

Page: 1 of 8

Oregon Iron Works, Inc.Preliminary Baseline Schedule for Portland Streetcar Loop with Elin

Project Manager: Leon KaunitzUpdated Status as of

27May10

(Reference FAR 52.227-14 Limited Rights Notice)(OIW), 9700 SE Lawnfield Road, Clackamas, Oregon. The disclosure, release, distribution, or unauthorized use of this information/data/without the express written consent of OIW is expressly prohibited."" The information/data contained on this drawing/file/document (whether in electronic or hard format and copy) contains Proprietary and Confidential information of Oregon Iron Works, Inc.

Activity ID Activity Desc. Dur. Start Finish TotalFloat

1 Portland (PDX) Streetcar Schedule 885d 07.01.09A 12.18.12 0

1.2 PDX Design Engineering / Integration (COT Loads) 562d 07.01.09A 09.20.11 0

1.2.2 PDX Design Structure 414d 07.01.09A 02.18.11 0

1.2.2.02 Notice to Proceed (NTP) 0 08.12.09A 08.12.09A 0

1.2.2.04 Finalize Design Concepts - 3D Model 80d 07.01.09A 03.09.10A 0

1.2.2.06 Preliminary Body Shell Bogie Design / Shop Drawings / IncrementalApprovals

210d 10.06.09A 08.27.10 20d

1.2.2.06A Release Phase I Shop Drawings 0 08.27.10 08.27.10 120d

1.2.2.06B Shop Drawings Additional Time - Elin 100d 08.30.10 01.21.11 20d

1.2.2.06C Shop Drawings Complete 0 02.18.11 02.18.11 0

1.2.2.07 OIW Incorporate Elin Electrical Design into Production Drawings 30d 12.09.10 01.21.11 0

1.2.2.08 FEA Body Shell / Bogie Frame / Incremental Approvals 150d 09.23.09A 07.01.10 55d

1.2.2.09 OIW Incorporate Elin Electrical Design into Structural Design 35d 08.02.10 09.20.10 0

1.2.2.10 Design Changes Preliminary / FEA 30d 09.21.10 11.01.10 0

1.2.2.12 Preliminary FEA Reports 10d 11.02.10 11.15.10 35d

1.2.2.14 Structural Design Complete 0 11.15.10 11.15.10 35d

1.2.2.16 PDX Review of Preliminary FEA 30d 11.16.10 12.15.10 53d

1.2.2.18 Final FEA Reports 0 01.21.11 01.21.11 2d

1.2.8 PDX Design Systems 385d 08.12.09A 02.18.11 0

1.2.8.02 Long Lead Vendor Selection Process 225d 08.12.09A 07.01.10 54d

1.2.8.04 HVAC / Air Distribution System / Ducting 179d 10.29.09A 07.15.10 51d

1.2.8.06 Finalize Duct Design - Mid Size Unit 20d 01.24.11 02.18.11 0

1.2.10 Elin System Integration and Propulsion System 363d 04.15.10A 09.20.11 0

1.2.10.01 Elin NTP 0 05.01.10A 05.01.10A 0

1.2.10.02 Elin Design (Concept) 75d 04.15.10A 07.30.10 0

1.2.10.02.1 Elin Sketches of Schematic Diagrams 66d 04.28.10A 07.30.10 0

1.2.10.02.2 OIW/Elin Installation Studies 3D on vehiclelevel 59d 04.15.10A 07.08.10 0

1.2.10.02.2.02 OIW definition of locations for devices, 3D models of roofequipment

35d 04.15.10A 04.29.10A 0

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A

Portland (PDX) Streetcar Schedule9A 12.18.12

PDX Design Engineering / Integration (COT Loads)9A 09.20.11

PDX Design Structure9A 02.18.11

(NTP) 12Aug09

3d Finalize Design Concepts - 3D Model09 09Mar10

227d Preliminary Body Shell Bogie Design / Shop Drawings / Incremental Approvals06Oct09 27Aug10

Release Phase I Shop Drawings - 08.27.10Shop Drawings Additional Time - Elin

30Aug10 21Jan11

Shop Drawings Complete - 02.18.11OIW Incorporate Elin Electrical Design into Production Drawings

09Dec10 21Jan11196d FEA Body Shell / Bogie Frame / Incremental Approvals

23Sep09 01Jul10

OIW Incorporate Elin Electrical Design into Structural Design02Aug10 20Sep10

Design Changes Preliminary / FEA21Sep10 01Nov10

Preliminary FEA Reports02Nov10 15Nov10

Structural Design Complete - 11.15.10PDX Review of Preliminary FEA

16Nov10 15Dec10

Final FEA Reports - 01.21.11PDX Design Systems

8.12.09A 02.18.11

225d Long Lead Vendor Selection ProcessAug09 01Jul10

179d HVAC / Air Distribution System / Ducting29Oct09 15Jul10

Finalize Duct Design - Mid Size Unit24Jan11 18Feb11

Elin System Integration and Propulsion System04.15.10A 09.20.11

Elin NTP 01May10

Elin Design (Concept)04.15.10A 07.30.10

66d Elin Sketches of Schematic Diagrams28Apr10 30Jul10

OIW/Elin Installation Studies 3D on vehiclelevel04.15.10A 07.08.10

11d OIW definition of locations for devices, 3D models of roof equipment15Apr10 29Apr10

TN - 27May10

Project: 2422E


Page: 2 of 8



27May10



1.2.10.02.2.04 Elin definition of main circuit concept, diameters 15d 05.04.10A 05.28.10 0

1.2.10.02.2.06 Elin definition of cable separation for EMC purposes and cable 31d 05.03.10A 06.15.10 1d

1.2.10.02.2.08 Elin preliminary definition of cable routing and openings 31d 05.04.10A 06.16.10 0

1.2.10.02.2.10 Elin preliminary definition of subsystems and their interfaces 52d 04.25.10A 07.08.10 0

1.2.10.02.2.12 OIW Engineering position of connectors 11d 06.17.10 07.01.10 0

1.2.10.02.3 Elin prliminary control concept, preliminary hazard analysis,preliminary FMEA

23d 04.16.10A 05.28.10 0

1.2.10.02.4 Elin submission of preliminary control concept, hazard analysis,FMEA to OIW

0 05.28.10 05.28.10 44d

1.2.10.02.6 Customer Approval of concept 0 07.08.10 07.08.10 16d

1.2.10.04 Elin Design (Detail) 238d 04.25.10A 04.04.11 0

1.2.10.04.02 Elin sketches of circuit diagrams 131d 04.25.10A 10.28.10 62d

1.2.10.04.04 OIW Engineering equipment list 45d 10.29.10 01.05.11 62d

1.2.10.04.06 OIW Engineering wiring list 45d 10.29.10 01.05.11 62d

1.2.10.04.08 OIW Engineering cable list 45d 10.29.10 01.05.11 62d

1.2.10.04.10 Elin cable & connector specification for harness 110d 05.03.10A 10.06.10 123d

1.2.10.04.12 Elin instructions 67d 07.26.10 10.27.10 108d

1.2.10.04.14 Elin Harness design 3D 147d 07.02.10 02.01.11 0

1.2.10.04.16 Elin cable laying diagrams 43d 02.02.11 04.04.11 0

1.2.10.04.18 Elin harness manufacturing drawings 110d 09.01.10 02.08.11 38d

1.2.10.04.20 Elin harness bills of materials 110d 09.01.10 02.08.11 38d

1.2.10.04.22 Elin harness wiring lists 110d 09.01.10 02.08.11 38d

1.2.10.04.24 OIW Engineering location diagrams 170d 08.02.10 04.04.11 0

1.2.10.04.26 OIW Engineering grounding list 170d 08.02.10 04.04.11 0

1.2.10.04.28 OIW Engineering cable transists 170d 08.02.10 04.04.11 0

1.2.10.04.30 OIW Engineering terminal blocks 170d 08.02.10 04.04.11 0

1.2.10.04.32 OIW Engineering mechanical assembly drawings 170d 08.02.10 04.04.11 0

1.2.10.04.34 OIW Engineering mechanical manufacturing drawings 170d 08.02.10 04.04.11 0

1.2.10.04.36 OIW Engineering bills of mechanical materials 170d 08.02.10 04.04.11 0

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014


18d Elin definition of main circuit concept, diameters04May10 28May10

31d Elin definition of cable separation for EMC purposes and cable03May10 15Jun10

31d Elin preliminary definition of cable routing and openings04May10 16Jun10

52d Elin preliminary definition of subsystems and their interfaces25Apr10 08Jul10

OIW Engineering position of connectors17Jun10 01Jul10

30d Elin prliminary control concept, preliminary hazard analysis, preliminary FMEA16Apr10 28May10

on of preliminary control concept, hazard analysis, FMEA to OIW - 05.28.10

Customer Approval of concept - 07.08.10Elin Design (Detail)

04.25.10A 04.04.11

131d Elin sketches of circuit diagrams25Apr10 28Oct10

OIW Engineering equipment list29Oct10 05Jan11

OIW Engineering wiring list29Oct10 05Jan11

OIW Engineering cable list29Oct10 05Jan11

110d Elin cable & connector specification for harness03May10 06Oct10

Elin instructions26Jul10 27Oct10

Elin Harness design 3D02Jul10 01Feb11

Elin cable laying diagrams02Feb11 04Apr11

Elin harness manufacturing drawings01Sep10 08Feb11

Elin harness bills of materials01Sep10 08Feb11

Elin harness wiring lists01Sep10 08Feb11

OIW Engineering location diagrams02Aug10 04Apr11

OIW Engineering grounding list02Aug10 04Apr11

OIW Engineering cable transists02Aug10 04Apr11

OIW Engineering terminal blocks02Aug10 04Apr11

OIW Engineering mechanical assembly drawings02Aug10 04Apr11

OIW Engineering mechanical manufacturing drawings02Aug10 04Apr11

OIW Engineering bills of mechanical materials02Aug10 04Apr11

Project: 2422E


Page: 3 of 8



27May10



1.2.10.04.38 Approval of Detailed Planning 0 04.04.11 04.04.11 0

1.2.10.06 Elin Manufacturing 318d 04.16.10A 07.19.11 0

1.2.10.06.02 Interface clarification for serial motors 11d 04.16.10A 05.28.10 0

1.2.10.06.08 Interface clarification for serial traction inverter 23d 05.03.10A 06.03.10 0

1.2.10.06.10 Lead time for serial traction inverter 254d 06.04.10 06.06.11 0

1.2.10.06.12 Shipping time for serial traction inverter 30d 06.07.11 07.19.11 0

1.2.10.06.14 Interface clarification for APS 45d 05.03.10A 07.06.10 0

1.2.10.06.16 Lead time for APS 232d 07.07.10 06.06.11 0

1.2.10.06.18 Shipping time for APS 30d 06.07.11 07.19.11 0

1.2.10.06.20 Interface clarification for braking resistor 23d 09.15.10 10.15.10 34d

1.2.10.06.22 Lead time for braking resistor 126d 10.18.10 04.18.11 34d

1.2.10.06.24 Shipping time for braking resistor 30d 04.19.11 05.31.11 34d

1.2.10.06.26 Interface clarification and design clarification for display 43d 08.17.10 10.15.10 34d

1.2.10.06.28 Lead time for display 126d 10.18.10 04.18.11 34d

1.2.10.06.30 Shipping time for display 30d 04.19.11 05.31.11 34d

1.2.10.06.32 Interface and design clarification for digital I/Os 43d 08.17.10 10.15.10 34d

1.2.10.06.34 Lead time for digital I/Os 126d 10.18.10 04.18.11 34d

1.2.10.06.36 Shipping time for digital I/Os 30d 04.19.11 05.31.11 34d

1.2.10.06.38 Interface clarification for master controller 43d 08.17.10 10.15.10 34d

1.2.10.06.40 Lead time for master controller 126d 10.18.10 04.18.11 34d

1.2.10.06.42 Shipping time for master controller 30d 04.19.11 05.31.11 34d

1.2.10.06.44 Lead time for harnesses 85d 02.02.11 06.02.11 32d

1.2.10.08 Elin Testing 181d 01.05.11 09.20.11 0

1.2.10.08.02 Creation of testing documentation 150d 01.05.11 08.05.11 31d

1.2.10.08.04 Lab test of CAN bus 42d 03.03.11 04.29.11 55d

1.2.10.08.06 Propulstion system test 44d 07.20.11 09.20.11 0

1.2.10.08.08 Creation of Commissioning documentation 85d 03.07.11 07.05.11 10d

1.2.10.10 Elin Production of Vehicles #1-6 32d 06.02.11 07.19.11 0

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014


Approval of Detailed Planning - 04.04.11Elin Manufacturing

04.16.10A 07.19.11

30d Interface clarification for serial motors16Apr10 28May10

23d Interface clarification for serial traction inverter03May10 03Jun10

Lead time for serial traction inverter04Jun10 06Jun11

Shipping time for serial traction inverter07Jun11 19Jul11

45d Interface clarification for APS03May10 06Jul10

Lead time for APS07Jul10 06Jun11

Shipping time for APS07Jun11 19Jul11

Interface clarification for braking resistor15Sep10 15Oct10

Lead time for braking resistor18Oct10 18Apr11

Shipping time for braking resistor19Apr11 31May11

Interface clarification and design clarification for display17Aug10 15Oct10

Lead time for display18Oct10 18Apr11

Shipping time for display19Apr11 31May11

Interface and design clarification for digital I/Os17Aug10 15Oct10

Lead time for digital I/Os18Oct10 18Apr11

Shipping time for digital I/Os19Apr11 31May11

Interface clarification for master controller17Aug10 15Oct10

Lead time for master controller18Oct10 18Apr11

Shipping time for master controller19Apr11 31May11

Lead time for harnesses02Feb11 02Jun11

Elin Testing01.05.11 09.20.11

Creation of testing documentation05Jan11 05Aug11

Lab test of CAN bus03Mar11 29Apr11

Propulstion system test20Jul11 20Sep11

Creation of Commissioning documentation07Mar11 05Jul11

Elin Production of Vehicles #1-606.02.11 07.19.11

Project: 2422E


Page: 4 of 8



27May10



1.2.10.10.02 Delivery of traction equipment without motors Vehicle #1 0 07.19.11 07.19.11 0

1.2.10.10.04 Delivery of harnesses Vehicle #1 0 06.02.11 06.02.11 32d











1.2.10.10.26 Delivery of Misc Elin Equipment 0 07.19.11 07.19.11 0

1.4 PDX Procurement - Critical Long-Lead 442d 11.05.09A 08.05.11 0

1.4.02 Leadtime KNOR Brakes 260d 11.05.09A 02.01.11 120d

1.4.04 Design Conformance First Article Inspection / Test / Ship 10d 02.02.11 02.15.11 120d

1.4.06 Delivery of Brake 0 02.15.11 02.15.11 120d

1.4.08 Leadtime BODE Doors 280d 11.05.09A 01.14.11 119d


1.4.12 Delivery of Doors 0 01.28.11 01.28.11 119d

1.4.13 Bridge Plate Vendor Evaluation 164d 11.06.09A 07.01.10 54d

1.4.14 Leadtime Bridge Plates 200d 07.02.10 04.18.11 54d


1.4.18 Delivery of Bridge Plates 0 05.02.11 05.02.11 54d

1.4.19 HVAC Vendor Evaluation 161d 11.06.09A 06.28.10 0

1.4.20 Leadtime HVAC System 160d 06.29.10 02.15.11 0

1.4.20A Development of Mid-sized Unit 110d 02.16.11 07.22.11 0

1.4.22 Design Conformance First Article Inspection / Test / Ship 10d 07.25.11 08.05.11 0

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014


Delivery of traction equipment without motors Vehicle #1 - 07.19.11

Delivery of harnesses Vehicle #1 - 06.02.11











Delivery of Misc Elin Equipment - 07.19.11PDX Procurement - Critical Long-Lead

11.05.09A 08.05.11

312d Leadtime KNOR Brakes05Nov09 01Feb11

Design Conformance First Article Inspection / Test / Ship02Feb11 15Feb11

Delivery of Brake - 02.15.11300d Leadtime BODE Doors

05Nov09 14Jan11

Design Conformance First Article Inspection / Test / Ship17Jan11 28Jan11

Delivery of Doors - 01.28.11164d Bridge Plate Vendor Evaluation

06Nov09 01Jul10

Leadtime Bridge Plates02Jul10 18Apr11

Design Conformance First Article Inspection / Test / Ship19Apr11 02May11

Delivery of Bridge Plates - 05.02.11161d HVAC Vendor Evaluation

06Nov09 28Jun10

Leadtime HVAC System29Jun10 15Feb11

Development of Mid-sized Unit16Feb11 22Jul11

Design Conformance First Article Inspection / Test / Ship25Jul11 05Aug11

Project: 2422E


Page: 5 of 8



27May10



1.4.24 Delivery of HVAC System 0 08.05.11 08.05.11 0

1.4.25 Manufacture Ductwork Group 60d 02.22.11 05.16.11 44d

1.4.26 Leadtime VECOM Communications System 160d 07.02.10 02.18.11 94d


1.4.30 Delivery of Communications System 0 03.07.11 03.07.11 94d

1.4.32 Procure Other Hardware / Materials 102d 07.08.10 12.01.10 159d

1.4.34 Delivery of Other Hardware / Materials 0 12.01.10 12.01.10 159d

1.4.39 Motor Vendor Evaluation 77d 11.06.09A 04.20.10A 0

1.4.40 Procure Elin Propulsion Motors 220d 04.20.10A 04.06.11 85d

1.4.42 Delivery of Propulsion Motors 0 04.06.11 04.06.11 85d

1.6 PDX Manufacturing Structural 300d 08.25.10 10.31.11 0

1.6.2 PDX Prefabrication 180d 08.25.10 05.11.11 0

1.6.2.02 Prefab Structural PDX 1-6 180d 08.25.10 05.11.11 0

1.6.4 PDX Fabricate Bogies 290d 09.09.10 10.31.11 0

1.6.4.02 Fab Subassembly Test Bogies PDX (Test Bogies #1 & #2) 80d 09.09.10 01.04.11 0

1.6.4.04 Fit / Weld / Machine First Article Bogie (Test Bogies #1 & #2) 40d 09.23.10 11.17.10 0

1.6.4.06 Bogie Frame Static Test (Test Bogies #1 & #2) 20d 11.18.10 12.17.10 0

1.6.4.08 Bogie Frame Fatigue Test (Test Bogies #1 & #2) 30d 12.20.10 02.01.11 0

1.6.4.10 Bogie First Article Approval (Test Bogies #1 & #2) 15d 02.02.11 02.23.11 25d

1.6.4.12 Bogie First Article Approved (Test Bogies #1 & #2) 0 02.23.11 02.23.11 175d

1.6.4.16 Fit / Weld / Machine Delivery of PDX #1 Bogies (1-2) 50d 01.19.11 03.30.11 0

1.6.4.22 Penn Machine / Assembly / Test / Ship PDX #1 Bogies (1-2) 30d 04.07.11 05.18.11 115d

1.6.4.24 Fit / Weld / Machine PDX #2 Bogies (3-4) 40d 03.31.11 05.25.11 0






2010 2011 2012 2013 2014


Delivery of HVAC System - 08.05.11Manufacture Ductwork Group

22Feb11 16May11

Leadtime VECOM Communications System02Jul10 18Feb11

Design Conformance First Article Inspection / Test / Ship22Feb11 07Mar11

Delivery of Communications System - 03.07.11Procure Other Hardware / Materials

08Jul10 01Dec10

Delivery of Other Hardware / Materials - 12.01.10113d Motor Vendor Evaluation

06Nov09 20Apr10244d Procure Elin Propulsion Motors

20Apr10 06Apr11

Delivery of Propulsion Motors - 04.06.11PDX Manufacturing Structural

08.25.10 10.31.11

PDX Prefabrication08.25.10 05.11.11

Prefab Structural PDX 1-625Aug10 11May11

PDX Fabricate Bogies09.09.10 10.31.11

Fab Subassembly Test Bogies PDX (Test Bogies #1 & #2)09Sep10 04Jan11

Fit / Weld / Machine First Article Bogie (Test Bogies #1 & #2)23Sep10 17Nov10

Bogie Frame Static Test (Test Bogies #1 & #2)18Nov10 17Dec10

Bogie Frame Fatigue Test (Test Bogies #1 & #2)20Dec10 01Feb11

Bogie First Article Approval (Test Bogies #1 & #2)02Feb11 23Feb11

Bogie First Article Approved (Test Bogies #1 & #2) - 02.23.11Fit / Weld / Machine Delivery of PDX #1 Bogies (1-2)

19Jan11 30Mar11

Penn Machine / Assembly / Test / Ship PDX #1 Bogies (1-2)07Apr11 18May11

Fit / Weld / Machine PDX #2 Bogies (3-4)31Mar11 25May11

Penn Machine / Assembly / Test / Ship PDX #2 Bogies (3-4)26May11 08Jul11

Fit / Weld / Machine PDX #3 Bogies (5-6)28Apr11 23Jun11

Penn Machine / Assembly / Test / Ship PDX #3 Bogies (5-6)24Jun11 05Aug11

Fit / Weld / Machine PDX #4 Bogies (7-8)26May11 22Jul11

Penn Machine / Assembly / Test / Ship PDX #4 Bogies (7-8)25Jul11 02Sep11

Project: 2422E


Page: 6 of 8



27May10






1.6.4.42 Penn Machine / Assembly / Test / Ship PDX #6 Bogies (11-12) 30d 09.20.11 10.31.11 0

1.6.6 PDX Fabricate Body Shells / Paint 235d 10.12.10 09.15.11 0

1.6.6.02 Fab Body Shell Subassembly & Prime PDX #1 70d 10.12.10 01.21.11 0

1.6.6.04 Assembly Body Shell PDX #1 50d 11.23.10 02.04.11 0

1.6.6.06 First Article Body Shell Static Test 30d 02.07.11 03.21.11 0

1.6.6.08 Body Shell First Article Approval 10d 03.22.11 04.04.11 100d

1.6.6.10 Body Shell First Article Approved 0 04.04.11 04.04.11 100d

1.6.6.12 Retro From Test Results PDX#1 5d 03.22.11 03.28.11 64d

1.6.6.14 Prime / Paint Body Shell PDX #1 10d 03.29.11 04.11.11 64d

1.6.6.16 Connect Cabs Articulation Structural PDX #1 5d 04.12.11 04.18.11 64d


1.6.6.20 Assembly Body Shell PDX #2 25d 04.19.11 05.23.11 65d














2010 2011 2012 2013 2014


Fit / Weld / Machine PDX #5 Bogies (9-10)24Jun11 19Aug11

Penn Machine / Assembly / Test / Ship PDX #5 Bogies (9-10)22Aug11 03Oct11

Fit / Weld / Machine PDX #6 Bogies (11-12)25Jul11 19Sep11

Penn Machine / Assembly / Test / Ship PDX #6 Bogies (11-12)20Sep11 31Oct11

PDX Fabricate Body Shells / Paint10.12.10 09.15.11

Fab Body Shell Subassembly & Prime PDX #112Oct10 21Jan11

Assembly Body Shell PDX #123Nov10 04Feb11

First Article Body Shell Static Test07Feb11 21Mar11

Body Shell First Article Approval22Mar11 04Apr11

Body Shell First Article Approved - 04.04.11Retro From Test Results PDX#1

22Mar11 28Mar11

Prime / Paint Body Shell PDX #129Mar11 11Apr11

Connect Cabs Articulation Structural PDX #112Apr11 18Apr11

Fab Body Shell Subassembly & Prime PDX #207Feb11 02May11

Assembly Body Shell PDX #219Apr11 23May11

Prime / Paint Body Shell PDX #224May11 07Jun11

Connect Cabs Articulation Structural PDX #208Jun11 14Jun11

Fab Body Shell Subassembly & Prime PDX #308Mar11 31May11

Assembly Body Shell PDX #317May11 21Jun11

Prime / Paint Body Shell PDX #322Jun11 06Jul11

Connect Cabs Articulation Structural PDX #307Jul11 13Jul11

Fab Body Shell Subassembly & Prime PDX #429Mar11 21Jun11

Assembly Body Shell PDX #408Jun11 13Jul11

Prime / Paint Body Shell PDX #414Jul11 27Jul11

Connect Cabs Articulation Structural PDX #428Jul11 03Aug11

Fab Body Shell Subassembly & Prime PDX #519Apr11 13Jul11

Assembly Body Shell PDX #529Jun11 03Aug11

Prime / Paint Body Shell PDX #504Aug11 17Aug11

Project: 2422E


Page: 7 of 8



27May10





1.6.6.52 Assembly Body Shell PDX #6 25d 07.21.11 08.24.11 0

1.6.6.54 Prime / Paint Body Shell PDX #6 10d 08.25.11 09.08.11 0

1.6.6.56 Connect Cabs Articulation Structural PDX #6 5d 09.09.11 09.15.11 0

1.8 PDX Outfitting / Shop Test 247d 07.20.11 07.03.12 0

1.8.02 Install Electrical Mechanical / Trim Package PDX #1 115d 07.20.11 12.30.11 0

1.8.04 Shop Run / Static Tests - OIW Track PDX #1 40d 01.02.12 02.24.12 0

1.8.06 Transport to Customer Track PDX #1 2d 02.27.12 02.28.12 0


1.8.10 Shop Test Run - OIW Track PDX #2 25d 03.05.12 04.06.12 0






1.8.22 Shop Test Run - OIW Track PDX #4 25d 04.02.12 05.04.12 10d

1.8.24 Transport to Customer Track PDX #4 2d 05.07.12 05.08.12 10d


1.8.28 Shop Test Run - OIW Track PDX #5 25d 04.30.12 06.01.12 10d

1.8.30 Transport to Customer Track PDX #5 2d 06.04.12 06.05.12 10d




1.10 PDX Track Testing / Acceptance 210d 02.28.12 12.18.12 0

1.10.02 Arrival at Customer Track PDX #1 0 02.28.12 02.28.12 0

1.10.04 Test at Customer Track PDX #1 70d 02.29.12 06.05.12 0

1.10.06 Acceptance Test at Customer Track PDX #1 20d 06.06.12 07.03.12 0

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014


Connect Cabs Articulation Structural PDX #518Aug11 24Aug11

Fab Body Shell Subassembly & Prime PDX #610May11 03Aug11

Assembly Body Shell PDX #621Jul11 24Aug11

Prime / Paint Body Shell PDX #625Aug11 08Sep11

Connect Cabs Articulation Structural PDX #609Sep11 15Sep11

PDX Outfitting / Shop Test07.20.11 07.03.12

Install Electrical Mechanical / Trim Package PDX #120Jul11 30Dec11

Shop Run / Static Tests - OIW Track PDX #102Jan12 24Feb12

Transport to Customer Track PDX #127Feb12 28Feb12

Install Electrical Mechanical / Trim Package PDX #213Oct11 02Mar12

Shop Test Run - OIW Track PDX #205Mar12 06Apr12

Transport to Customer Track PDX #209Apr12 10Apr12

Install Electrical Mechanical / Trim Package PDX #310Nov11 16Mar12

Shop Test Run - OIW Track PDX #319Mar12 20Apr12

Transport to Customer Track PDX #323Apr12 24Apr12

Install Electrical Mechanical / Trim Package PDX #412Dec11 30Mar12

Shop Test Run - OIW Track PDX #402Apr12 04May12

Transport to Customer Track PDX #407May12 08May12

Install Electrical Mechanical / Trim Package PDX #509Jan12 27Apr12

Shop Test Run - OIW Track PDX #530Apr12 01Jun12

Transport to Customer Track PDX #504Jun12 05Jun12

Install Electrical Mechanical / Trim Package PDX #606Feb12 25May12

Shop Test Run - OIW Track PDX #628May12 29Jun12

Transport to Customer Track PDX #602Jul12 03Jul12

PDX Track Testing / Acceptance02.28.12 12.18.12

Arrival at Customer Track PDX #1 - 02.28.12Target Date 02.28.12

Test at Customer Track PDX #129Feb12 05Jun12

Acceptance Test at Customer Track PDX #106Jun12 03Jul12

Project: 2422E


Page: 8 of 8



27May10



1.10.08 Final Acceptance - Punch List PDX #1 5d 07.04.12 07.10.12 0

1.10.10 Delivery of PDX #1 0 07.10.12 07.10.12 0





1.10.20 Delivery of PDX #2 0 07.24.12 07.24.12 0





1.10.30 Delivery of PDX #3 0 08.28.12 08.28.12 0

1.10.32 Arrival at Customer Track PDX #4 0 05.08.12 05.08.12 10d




1.10.40 Delivery of PDX #4 0 09.11.12 09.11.12 0

1.10.42 Arrival at Customer Track PDX #5 0 06.05.12 06.05.12 10d




1.10.50 Delivery of PDX #5 0 10.30.12 10.30.12 0





1.10.60 Delivery of PDX #6 0 12.18.12 12.18.12 0

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014


Final Acceptance - Punch List PDX #104Jul12 10Jul12

Delivery of PDX #1 - 07.10.12Target Date 07.10.12


Test at Customer Track PDX #211Apr12 19Jun12

Acceptance Test at Customer Track PDX #220Jun12 17Jul12

Final Acceptance - Punch List PDX #218Jul12 24Jul12



Test at Customer Track PDX #306Jun12 24Jul12

Acceptance Test at Customer Track PDX #325Jul12 21Aug12

Final Acceptance - Punch List PDX #322Aug12 28Aug12



Test at Customer Track PDX #420Jun12 07Aug12

Acceptance Test at Customer Track PDX #408Aug12 04Sep12

Final Acceptance - Punch List PDX #405Sep12 11Sep12



Test at Customer Track PDX #508Aug12 25Sep12

Acceptance Test at Customer Track PDX #526Sep12 23Oct12

Final Acceptance - Punch List PDX #524Oct12 30Oct12



Test at Customer Track PDX #626Sep12 13Nov12

Acceptance Test at Customer Track PDX #614Nov12 11Dec12

Final Acceptance - Punch List PDX #612Dec12 18Dec12


final trimet/city of portland of transportation technical capacity

Documents