I can see where this thread is going and I think we should keep the state of origin slurs out and concentrate on the facts .
Obviously these imported units are a fail mainly due to major component failures and asbestos materials in them .
The economics is that a locomotive class that has repeated major failures is bloody useless to its operator - no matter how cheap it cost to buy .
A locomotive that has asbestos in it is totally unusable , even if you get it for nothing .
The operators who tried to use these things must be out of pocket simply because they aren't getting the use out of them .
The big question should be would they have been worse off had they bought locally manufactured units from United or EDI ? SCT is said to have had great success with the SCT class and they no doubt have been a big part of what put that business where it is . Had they bought the United product I think it would have been a similar story .
I have a bad feeling that these imports will be problematic because it's going to take engineering over design to attempt to get them reliable . This is a problem for any complex piece of machinery that was never properly developed in the first place . The $64 question is how much money and effort do you throw at them trying to get them right . If it amounts to more than the tried and proven costs do you give up then ?
Something else to consider is that proven engineering , electrical and mechanical , comes from years of developing a successful product and someone else attempting to copy it without the knowledge and experience doesn't always end up with a successful product . Cost cutting often defeats successful engineering because some things are difficult to impossible to do on the cheap . If it was that simple locomotives made here and in the US would be cheaper than they are .