Network Rail confirmed plans for CP5 and aspirations for CP6

[MidlandMainlie]

What's a PFI got to do with it? That was the way that DfT decided to go about the orders it organised. Any subsequent IEP orders look far more likely to be done by conventional leasing company means, which won't take six or seven years to achieve, especially not if Hitachi's plant can run multiple production lines.

Yes, there will have to be a tender process but what are the likely options?

IEP or a next-generation UK-gauge Pendolino, which doesn't exist yet. And would tilt be required anyway for MML, set against the cost of easing curves at places like Wellingborough, and would Alstom want to go through the design and bid process for a middling-sized order with limited prospects for further UK purchases, apart perhaps for WestCoast, with the EC and GW routes already sewn up by IEP?

Oh, silly me, I forgot the solves-all-problems AC Class 444-alike, or something from China...

I remember reading an article a recent issue of Rail magazine where they interviewed the head of the UK division at Alstom. He basically said they weren't looking for any major UK orders beyond the baby Pendo's order for West Coast franchise which remains on the table and we're insted focusing on the Trams and light rail market.

 

[Haydn1971]

What's a PFI got to do with it? That was the way that DfT decided to go about the orders it organised. Any subsequent IEP orders look far more likely to be done by conventional leasing company means, which won't take six or seven years to achieve, especially not if Hitachi's plant can run multiple production lines.

The PFI defines a vehicle that performs to a set number of parameters covering specification, sourcing of sub contracted items, new depots and so on - a new tender will vary these parameters that places a different manufacturer to an advantage - reusing an existing depot, less onerous supplier constraints - IEP is a contract, SET is the Hitachi product, 800/801 are the classes

Yes, there will have to be a tender process but what are the likely options? IEP or a next-generation UK-gauge Pendolino, which doesn't exist yet.

There's a lot more on the market internationally, who would have thought a Japanese design from a firm with no market presence in the UK would have won out against establish European suppliers - modern trains and trams, like cars are designed as a platform that can accommodate a variety of different constraints for gauge, body width/length, door placement - UK localised technology systems can be deployed in a physical body from any modern global manufacturer

And would tilt be required anyway for MML, set against the cost of easing curves at places like Wellingborough, and would Alstom want to go through the design and bid process for a middling-sized order with limited prospects for further UK purchases, apart perhaps for WestCoast, with the EC and GW routes already sewn up by IEP?

Potentially, which would limit the benefits of the Hitachi product against something from Alstom, Bombardier, Siemens, Talgo, CAF etc who all have experience with tilt trains

 

[NotATrainspott]

I don't see any more tilting trains ordered for the UK other than the mini-Pendolinos because of the compromises involved in running them. Although it might be nice to be able to run EPS speeds over the MML, it will be more important to have each train carry as many passengers as possible until HS2 comes around and truly does make tilting trains a thing of the past on the north/south InterCity lines. Because the MML doesn't serve air-competitive markets like Scotland-London there is also not the intense need to reduce journey times as much as physically possible. Making the fastest services faster on the MML through tilt would also create speed differentials that might not otherwise have to exist, thus reducing overall capacity as commuter EMU designs wouldn't be able to use the InterCity paths (without tilt, a 200km/h Aventra EMU will be just as fast as a 200km/h Meridian or Class 801).

 

[76020]

Anybody got any ideas on this little job for CP6?
Will it be done? and it will cost a fortune.

 

[The Planner]

No, it won't.

 

[Haydn1971]

I don't see any more tilting trains ordered for the UK other than the mini-Pendolinos because of the compromises involved in running them. Although it might be nice to be able to run EPS speeds over the MML, it will be more important to have each train carry as many passengers as possible until HS2 comes around and truly does make tilting trains a thing of the past on the north/south InterCity lines. Because the MML doesn't serve air-competitive markets like Scotland-London there is also not the intense need to reduce journey times as much as physically possible. Making the fastest services faster on the MML through tilt would also create speed differentials that might not otherwise have to exist, thus reducing overall capacity as commuter EMU designs wouldn't be able to use the InterCity paths (without tilt, a 200km/h Aventra EMU will be just as fast as a 200km/h Meridian or Class 801).

Lots of excellent points there

 

[NotATrainspott]

Anybody got any ideas on this little job for CP6?
Will it be done? and it will cost a fortune.

It's one of the items in Network Rail/Arup's Rail alternatives to HS2 reports. The Medium and High Ouput ECML capacity packages include some works here to greater or larger extent:

Medium Output package:

Welwyn Tunnel 4 tracking
Addresses the capacity constraint at Welwyn Viaduct - alternative scheme to Alexandra Palace to Biggleswade, facilitates a lower increase in long-distance frequency though

High Output package:

Additional 2 tracks between Alexandra Palace and Biggleswade via a combination of tunnel to the M25 and then new alignment broadly following the A1
Addresses the capacity constraint at Welwyn Viaduct - facilitates increase in long-distance frequency to 11 tph & journey time improvements through 140mph running

Because the High Speed Rail: London to the West Midlands Bill will be passed by Parliament just less than three weeks away the long-term need for the four-tracking does diminish slightly. However, if passenger numbers continue to increase as they are at the moment something will need to be done. The high-output option with the new alignment is 60km long and so I cannot see it ever happening unless it were built as the first stage of HS3 from London to Toton. The medium-output option is probably more likely to happen in the meantime before HS2 but that will also depend on the difficulty involved in quadrupling the viaduct.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Well, I am not an electrical engineer so I can't get into technical discussions with anyone. All I can say is that I have read it on a number of occasions in various Railway magazines, including 'Modern Railways' which is generally renowned for its technical expertise.

I don't quite understand your point about the rewrite of ECML timetable. From Kings Cross to Edinburgh, the Bi-Modes will be under electric power so there will be no speed degradation. As to whether they will be faster or slower than HSTs between Edinburgh and Aberdeen and Inverness, I don't really think that will bother passengers too much or have much impact on timetables.

I stand by my point that under current plans the fleet of Bi-Modes on order for FGW will only be running as far as Paington; HSTs will continue to run to Plymouth and beyond. If my assertion that Bi-Modes would struggle west of Newton Abbot is considered incorrect, I have to wonder why then not more were ordered to replace the HSTs as soon as possible, given that I think it is generally accepted that prolonging the life of the HSTs into the 2020s is going to be a struggle. I don't have an answer to that question.

How is prolonging the life of the HSTs going to be a struggle?

Fro what I understand spares are plentiful (and there will be plenty of 'Christmas tree' trains to pick some parts from), and disability regs can be managed even without replacing the coach external doors.

The only issue I could see is corrosion, however most have been well treated for it and it should be possible to create a solid fleet from the large numbers that will be off-hired once IEP comes.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Simple really, the 800/801 is a product of a PFI contract that covers building and maintaining a specific type of train - early contracts had mention of other routes, but the contract is for GWML & ECML - if 800/801 were moved, penalty clauses would be enacted, if new express 125mph multiple units were to be introduced on the MML or even XC route, tenders would be open to any manufacturer, but clearly Hitachi would be keen to build more 800/801 type units post EC/GW obligations, but then so will every other manufacturer and they are likely to be able to start construction of their product before Hitachi can

In other words there is no reason why the tendering process cannot start in the next months. The DfT clearly have a design in mind and once the supplier is chosen there is no reason why the trains could not start running once electrification is completed to at least Leicester. And if Hitachi won the contract there is no reason why production could be started before the current orders are completed. Personally I think the idea of running 225's is dead in the water.

Believe whatever you like, my comment is based upon the economics of running a regular fast train with a fraction of the passengers, the TOC's aren't going to do it if it's not profitable - can Leicester generate enough passengers alone to justify as many trains as what call there now - the answer is no - could it generate enough to justify one, absolutely, two, hmm... I'm not convinced

There won't be a MML service as it is now - passengers from Sheffield, Derby & Nottingham will use HS2 for London - take them away, MML as a franchise isn't economic to run as a single franchise - Leeds, York & north of there will use HS2 & CC HS2 services to London over ECML, as will Birmingham and sources north of there will transfer to HS2 & CC HS2 from WCML - some destinations will still be better served by current classic rail in a much wider XC style franchise to replace ECML/MML/WCML

I think your calculations are wrong and for that matter so do Network Rail and the DfT. In terms of Nottingham and Derby take a look at traffic levels on the M1 around Jct 25 and the A52 during the peak. That’s exactly what many others will do and ultimately will decide that it’s not worth travelling out to Toton. Look at the congestion on the Nottingham ring road and the same goes for Derby too.

Nottingham is the regional centre for the East Midlands and pretty much everything is located in the city centre. Look where the Universities are; nothing is located anywhere near Toton. And given that the area around Toton is something of a hole nothing is likely to move either. Beeston will be your closest bet but changing trains will always be negative for many people.

And then we move on to Derby. Employment is dominated by Toyota and Rolls Royce and both have their manufacturing plants to the west of the city centre. Toton will be of no use to them. The other big employers are the companies based on Pride Park which is right next to the station. Then start looking at travel times from the suburbs to Toton as compared to the current station.

Even if you fail to grasp all of this, fortunately for the East and North Midlands the DfT and Network Rail do. Both of those organisations have both stated that they don't expect the MML timetable to be essentially any different to the current timetable. Which means you can also expect at least one train an hour running from Sheffield with a station call at Chesterfield. After one stop at Leicester you’re in London. Given the travel time between the likes of Bolsolver and Toton I think the MML would be pretty competitive. There is no way on earth that Chesterfield and its surrounding area will be left without a IC service to London. Essentially I don't think any MML IC services will start from Leicester in which case there is no need to just have to rely on customers from Leicester to justify a IC service.

I know you dream of Toton being a transport hub but it simply isn’t going to happen. Heathrow works as a hub because people are prepared to travel in excess of three hours to travel thousands of miles (and course Heathrow tends to be where the best deals are).

Haha... Everything the DfT does creates winners and losers - add a bus lane, car users suffer, widen a road, pedestrians have more road to cross, move trains between TOC's, someone gains, someone suffers

Ok, add a bus lane and everybody benefits, which is why they are introduced. More people use the bus which means there are fewer cars on the road so traffic speeds up. Everyone's a winner, no one's a loser.
Widen a road but then you have a protected pedestrian crossing. That way no one has to play chicken!

Thirdly, with the current cascade programme everybody benefits in some way, even if its just extra trains that have seen better days. Unless of course the 225's are transferred to the MML in which the entire route is screwed.

No preaching here, my offer still stands, I can show you some amazing detached property in acres of land for the price of a rabbit hutch in SW London - Rotherham isn't a very nice town centre at all, the rural areas to the south and north are conversely very nice, with pockets of mining villages, which to be fair ain't that nice... Just like the SW area of London you live in, very nice streets next to very bad streets. I already live in a very nice alternative area of SE Sheffield that puts Dore/Totley to shame - I'm happy where I am, hopefully the news won't get to the Sheffield Hallam mob who will just inflate prices

Thanks for the invitation but it’s a no from me. I left the East Midlands to go University in Manchester at 18 and I've no intention of returning (I'm now 47). I'm proud of my roots and often head back to visit my family and friends and watch Derby play but that’s it. The same goes for my wife who's from Nelson in East Lancs. This is not nor the time or the place to start discussing property but we own a very nice detached property and love where we live. And for what its worth there aren’t many bad streets in Richmond. And currently Rotheham to London is one heck of a commute, even with much improved journey times!

Ah look, your part of South Yorks is obviously absolutely fine for some or else you and many others wouldn't live there. However London gives my family and me a far better quality of life than anywhere in the East Midlands / South Yorks ever could. Not mention enjoying a pint at the White Cross by the Thames on a nice spring / summer evening!

 

[Haydn1971]

Richmond, thank you for your waffle... It's put a smile on my face that someone can put so much effort into arguing over just about everything I'm saying... I feel completely honoured

 

[RichmondCommu]

Richmond, thank you for your waffle... It's put a smile on my face that someone can put so much effort into arguing over just about everything I'm saying... I feel completely honoured

So in other words you're in complete agreement!

 

[Haydn1971]

So in other words you're in complete agreement!

In other words, no

 

[MidlandMainlie]

In other words there is no reason why the tendering process cannot start in the next months. The DfT clearly have a design in mind and once the supplier is chosen there is no reason why the trains could not start running once electrification is completed to at least Leicester. And if Hitachi won the contract there is no reason why production could be started before the current orders are completed. Personally I think the idea of running 225's is dead in the water.

Given the current EMT franchise is now set to run until October 2017 according to the revised franchising timetable published today any tendering for new stock will have to begin under the incumbent operator who have said previously that they want new 125mph EMU's so 225's are looking unlikely.

 

[RichmondCommu]

In other words, no

I tell you what I'll give you a tour of the Motherland and then you'll agree that I was right all along! And we were having such fun!

 

[Haydn1971]

With coming from Nottingham, I'd probably end up shot down a back street !

 

[jimm]

The PFI defines a vehicle that performs to a set number of parameters covering specification, sourcing of sub contracted items, new depots and so on - a new tender will vary these parameters that places a different manufacturer to an advantage - reusing an existing depot, less onerous supplier constraints - IEP is a contract, SET is the Hitachi product, 800/801 are the classes

How on earth can you say that a new tender would put someone else at an advantage? Should it happen, it's a new contract opportunity for all interested parties. The PFI is irrelevant, being the means by which DfT has chosen to acquire the GW and EC IEP fleets, not how any prospective future order is likely to be placed - like I said, most likely via a conventional leasing company deal. If it comes to someone wanting a 125mph, non-tilt express electric set, then Hitachi is the front-runner, as the only company with such a British loading gauge-friendly design ready to emerge in the near future.

There's a lot more on the market internationally, who would have thought a Japanese design from a firm with no market presence in the UK would have won out against establish European suppliers - modern trains and trams, like cars are designed as a platform that can accommodate a variety of different constraints for gauge, body width/length, door placement - UK localised technology systems can be deployed in a physical body from any modern global manufacturer

There's a lot more on the market internationally but those trains are all built for more generous international loading gauges and can be adapted for individual markets without the bespoke bodywork that the British network requires. Apart from the names, there's precious little in common between Alstom Coradias for the UK (175 and 180) and continental Coradias and the same goes for UK Desiros and Siemens products of the same name in Europe.

Hitachi, probably rightly given the French and German habit of favouring local manufacturers whatever EU procurement rules may say, thought the UK would be more receptive to a new entrant, so put a lot of effort into the 395s and then the IEP, to give them a shop window for Europe to show what they could do.

 

[Haydn1971]

Jimm... The PFI is not irrelevant, the PFI covers the whole 27 year life costs of the 800/801 units, change the tender type and that changes the dynamics of what comes back from manufacturers. Options for a new 125mph electric set may include a new fleet, sticking a panto unit in the 222 units or daft as it sounds now, buying electric locos for Mk3/Mk4 carriages which each option putting different manufacturers to an advantage over others.

Even if introduced from 2018 a MML fleet will have just over 10 years running before HS2 comes online, which will then reduce the need for express units on ECML/MML/WCML from what we have today - i.e. Loads of 390/800/801/MML units that are 13 years old at the most, which will need to go somewhere - the more I think about this, the closer to HS2 we get, the more I'm feeling that DfT aren't going to be spending on new express EMU's for MML as less than a decade after power gets to Sheffield, a huge fleet of 390/800/801's will need to be cascaded elsewhere - if new units don't come to MML early on, the chances get slimmer as the years close on 2029 (revised HS2 completion) especially when ministers will be going out on tours of HS2 construction before electrification reaches beyond Liecester.

I can almost imagine the debate on here about no one wanting the then near 30 year old 390's cascading to their favourite TOC

 

[Haydn1971]

Apart from the names, there's precious little in common between Alstom Coradias for the UK (175 and 180) and continental Coradias and the same goes for UK Desiros and Siemens products of the same name in Europe.

You could say that about the Audi TT and the Skoda Yeti, however they are both built using the PQ35 platform, using shared power train, shared electrics and internal components.

At risk of upsetting some people, trains at the simplistic level are just steel/aluminium tubes stuffed with very similar electrics, power systems, drivetrain and interior fittings - yes, there are complex processes to go through in getting a train operational, but then every developed nation in the world will have similar complex commissioning processes that every manufacturer has to go through.

For what it's worth, I rode a Hitachi 395 for the first time a few weeks ago, loved it, can't wait for the 800/801 fleet, it's fantastic that the 800/801 fleet is being built in the UK, with UK sourced parts, some of which my wife's firm are supplying, but that doesn't automatically mean Hitachi should get follow on orders.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Given the current EMT franchise is now set to run until October 2017 according to the revised franchising timetable published today any tendering for new stock will have to begin under the incumbent operator who have said previously that they want new 125mph EMU's so 225's are looking unlikely.

Wires don't reach Derby or Nottingham until December 2019, so I don't think DfT will be in a hurry to underwrite a new MML high-speed train procurement before the franchise rebid.
Corby in 2017 will just be EMUs.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Even if introduced from 2018 a MML fleet will have just over 10 years running before HS2 comes online, which will then reduce the need for express units on ECML/MML/WCML from what we have today - i.e. Loads of 390/800/801/MML units that are 13 years old at the most, which will need to go somewhere - the more I think about this, the closer to HS2 we get, the more I'm feeling that DfT aren't going to be spending on new express EMU's for MML as less than a decade after power gets to Sheffield, a huge fleet of 390/800/801's will need to be cascaded elsewhere - if new units don't come to MML early on, the chances get slimmer as the years close on 2029 (revised HS2 completion) especially when ministers will be going out on tours of HS2 construction before electrification reaches beyond Liecester.

For reasons that you have chosen to ignore I wouldn't bank on any of that happening! As the DfT and Network Rail have already suggested Toton will simply not get the numbers to change the current timetable along the MML, certainly from Derby and Nottingham! In fact I would bet my house that the MML gets new trains in time for electrification. I'm sorry if this ruins your idea of Toton utopia! If HS2 reaches Toton by 2029 I would be very surprised.

 

[Haydn1971]

Haha... Doesn't ruin anything for me, I'm expressing a view that is different to yours

 

[RichmondCommu]

Haha... Doesn't ruin anything for me, I'm expressing a view that is different to yours

So what happened to your hub with spokes aka the rail equivalent of Heathrow!

 

[Class 170101]

My thoughts on this are that the Mark IVs will end up on the MML either with 91s and so the whole train becomes an interim measure before replacement with new electric trains, probably IEP, or they will be Mark IVs with new locos (Traxx) and as such will be on MML for 15 years or so.

The HSTs will last beyond 2020 and as I have said before probably end their days on running on Cross Country between Plymouth and Edinburgh via Birmingham and Leeds. I would suggest one final refurbishment before fleet wide retirement in the mid 2020s, similar to what Chiltern did with their Mark IIIs, all dependent on the progress of HS2.

I can't see the leasing companies scrapping old stock without a fight.

 

[RichmondCommu]

My thoughts on this are that the Mark IVs will end up on the MML either with 91s and so the whole train becomes an interim measure before replacement with new electric trains, probably IEP, or they will be Mark IVs with new locos (Traxx) and as such will be on MML for 15 years or so.

I can't see the leasing companies scrapping old stock without a fight.

But you are relying on a TOC leasing trains that are not suitable for the MML! Why would they want to do that?

 

[jimm]

Jimm... The PFI is not irrelevant, the PFI covers the whole 27 year life costs of the 800/801 units, change the tender type and that changes the dynamics of what comes back from manufacturers. Options for a new 125mph electric set may include a new fleet, sticking a panto unit in the 222 units or daft as it sounds now, buying electric locos for Mk3/Mk4 carriages which each option putting different manufacturers to an advantage over others.

The PFI is relevant to the order that has been placed for GW and EC trains. That's the be all and end all of the PFI. The Government has made it plain that it will not be going down that route, or anything similar, in future when it comes to rolling stock.

Another order will, as you say, change the dynamics of the situation, so the PFI terms and conditions are irrelevant, should MML or anyone else enter the market, with a tender tailored to meet its needs that has nothing to do with the PFI....

There are, of course, other options, but the fact remains Hitachi will be best placed should MML decide it wants new electric sets, as Hitachi is the only potential bidder with a UK-complaint, 125mph, non-tilt express train to offer and with a nice big order in its back pocket already to cover the development costs.

You could say that about the Audi TT and the Skoda Yeti, however they are both built using the PQ35 platform, using shared power train, shared electrics and internal components.

At risk of upsetting some people, trains at the simplistic level are just steel/aluminium tubes stuffed with very similar electrics, power systems, drivetrain and interior fittings - yes, there are complex processes to go through in getting a train operational, but then every developed nation in the world will have similar complex commissioning processes that every manufacturer has to go through.

And there I was thinking April 1 was a week ago. What have cars got to do with it? Is there a loading gauge issue on roads now? The British loading gauge means you need bespoke train bodies, with less room to fit all the bits on and into a specially-made steel/aluminium tube, rather than the one that the rest of Europe can use. Eg, our low bridges mean we can't do double-deck trains or have roof-mounted engines, which is how the French can build bi-mode trains with low-floor coaches. The Class 68 is a UKLight, not a EuroLight, because it's a bespoke design...

This issue is not as trivial as you seem determined to pretend it is. Stadler, which built its reputation as a train manufacturer by being ready to meet all sorts of requirements from operators, with some very small production runs at times, won't touch the UK market with a bargepole, which tells you a lot.

 

[Haydn1971]

Another order will, as you say, change the dynamics of the situation, so the PFI terms and conditions are irrelevant, should MML or anyone else enter the market, with a tender tailored to meet its needs that has nothing to do with the PFI.

The PFI is established by Agility Trains, which is made up of Hitachi, John Laing & Barclays - who will have a direct knowledge of what they want out of the contract and delivered their tender on that basis with products and construction skill set that worked for that contract - change the dynamics and the product will change - the next contract may require the train supplier to accommodate several different routes, which will determine how long and wide a train carriage will be, it may remove the maintenance element, which will change what needs to be fitted to the trains from the start - for example, if you know you are maintaining a train at your own cost for 27 years, you make sure you gear the parts to make it easy for you to repair, if maintenance is extra, you fit what is cheapest for the build to satisfy the specification in the knowledge that you will get paid extra to replace every 10 years

There are, of course, other options, but the fact remains Hitachi will be best placed should MML decide it wants new electric sets, as Hitachi is the only potential bidder with a UK-complaint, 125mph, non-tilt express train to offer and with a nice big order in its back pocket already to cover the development costs.

I actually agree with this, Hitachi will be in an excellent place if the order fits with their current commitments to deliver SET and the DfT wants to order multiple units - Siemens recently pulled out of the Crossrail tender because of commitments on ThamesLink for example. I also don't believe that tilt will be considered on MML, specifically because no mention is made on the CP6 document

And there I was thinking April 1 was a week ago. What have cars got to do with it? Is there a loading gauge issue on roads now?

Cheap gag cars are a great example to be fair, in that the same set of parts can be made to work in different bodies - which is why I mention them - the bogies on the proposed 345's are derived from the bogies on the 22x, the FlexxECO, other parts will be common with other Bombardier products, other parts shared with other manufacturers like seats, comms, ventilation systems.

The British loading gauge means you need bespoke train bodies, with less room to fit all the bits on and into a specially-made steel/aluminium tube, rather than the one that the rest of Europe can use. Eg, our low bridges mean we can't do double-deck trains or have roof-mounted engines, which is how the French can build bi-mode trains with low-floor coaches. The Class 68 is a UKLight, not a EuroLight, because it's a bespoke design...

All trains have bespoke bodies, the body is "just" the structural element, which is developed specifically for DKE of a line - manufacturers know this so use a platform system that can be as wide or as long as the order requires and can generally have the doors where ever the customer wants them - Siemens Desiro is probably the best example of this with the platform accommodating a wide range of requirements all over the world, the UK models are substantially different, but parts commonality is the key for Siemens, it's a fair bet that the Aventra platform is as flexible for a global market.

And I use the term "just" know that the design of structural elements isn't something that you do overnight - it's a complex task and using a common platform eases this process for deferent designs.

This issue is not as trivial as you seem determined to pretend it is. Stadler, which built its reputation as a train manufacturer by being ready to meet all sorts of requirements from operators, with some very small production runs at times, won't touch the UK market with a bargepole, which tells you a lot.

Have they publicly said that or just an assumption on your part ?

I'd like to add, it's great having this debate and hearing different constructive views rather than just argument for the sake of it

 

[jimm]

The PFI is established by Agility Trains, which is made up of Hitachi, John Laing & Barclays - who will have a direct knowledge of what they want out of the contract and delivered their tender on that basis with products and construction skill set that worked for that contract - change the dynamics and the product will change - the next contract may require the train supplier to accommodate several different routes, which will determine how long and wide a train carriage will be, it may remove the maintenance element, which will change what needs to be fitted to the trains from the start - for example, if you know you are maintaining a train at your own cost for 27 years, you make sure you gear the parts to make it easy for you to repair, if maintenance is extra, you fit what is cheapest for the build to satisfy the specification in the knowledge that you will get paid extra to replace every 10 years

Which seems to be a rather long and roundabout way of agreeing with me that the PFI contract is irrelevant to any prospective future order.

Cheap gag cars are a great example to be fair, in that the same set of parts can be made to work in different bodies - which is why I mention them - the bogies on the proposed 345's are derived from the bogies on the 22x, the FlexxECO, other parts will be common with other Bombardier products, other parts shared with other manufacturers like seats, comms, ventilation systems.

All trains have bespoke bodies, the body is "just" the structural element, which is developed specifically for DKE of a line - manufacturers know this so use a platform system that can be as wide or as long as the order requires and can generally have the doors where ever the customer wants them - Siemens Desiro is probably the best example of this with the platform accommodating a wide range of requirements all over the world, the UK models are substantially different, but parts commonality is the key for Siemens, it's a fair bet that the Aventra platform is as flexible for a global market.

And I use the term "just" know that the design of structural elements isn't something that you do overnight - it's a complex task and using a common platform eases this process for deferent designs.

Yes, you can share components, but the bodyshell is the elephant in the room here - and a very expensive one. Most of the European manufacturers offer a limited range of basic bodies, which are then adapted to the needs of each operator. Stadler's Flirt, to take one example, has been sold to more than 30 operators, with some of them buying both regional and suburban variants of the same basic train. To enter the UK market, you have to start all over again with a new bodyshell - it's an absolutely fundamental issue.

I'm not aware Stadler has ever made a black and white statement that they are not interested in the UK heavy rail market but they have never, so far as I'm aware, ever been mentioned in connection with any prospective UK order. And this is a firm that has expanded massively over the past decade, from three plants (two in Switzerland and one in Germany) to 10, scattered across Europe and in Algeria, plus a US sales office, and has delivered a good few dmus in the US, but not a twitch in the UK.

The only things they have sold here are trams, to Croydon Tramlink, which, of course, are to their standard design.

 

[HowardGWR]

I'm lost here. What have the various contractual and funding issues to do with a strategic approach to aspirations for CP6?

 

[jimm]

I'm lost here. What have the various contractual and funding issues to do with a strategic approach to aspirations for CP6?

I think we headed off down this particular detour when the issue of what trains you would use on the Midland Main Line when the wires go up entered the equation. Cascaded Mk4s v something else, eg IEPs...

 

[Haydn1971]

I'm lost here. What have the various contractual and funding issues to do with a strategic approach to aspirations for CP6?

It's often not the technical things that get in the way of getting a good job done, it's typically the legal details :-/