I assume any rebuilding would be done by someone for whom it was cheaper, or roughly as cheap. That might include some complicated situations, eg if an agency or railroad had idle capacity in its repair shops, wanted to keep its repair staff fully employed because they are valuable for the future, had an established relationship with a repair contractor that was valuable to maintain. In some of these cases the total fully-allocated cost of the repair work might be higher than buying new, but because it included a share of fixed costs (ownership and maintenance of a suitable facility that the RR or agency had and was keeping) it might actually work out to be cheaper. In other cases maintaining relationships might save money in the long run, no? But mostly I always assumed that places like NC rebuilt old cars because it was cheaper than buying new. Are the Siemens cars and locomotives so cheap that they are bound to be cheaper than rebuilding old cars? I mean, railroads and manufacturers have been rebuilding and remanufacturing locomotives and cars for decades and decades; have the economics of that suddenly changed? Locomotives aren't exactly cell phones, and neither are cars.
Of course it makes a big difference what needs to be repaired. Damaged frames vs. ratty insides, that kind of thing.
Of course it makes a big difference what needs to be repaired. Damaged frames vs. ratty insides, that kind of thing.
