London Overground New EMUs shortlisted bidders

[Manchester77]

UK: Bombardier, CAF, Hitachi and Siemens have been shortlisted for a contract to supply 39 four-car ‘metro-style’ electric multiple-units for London Overground services, Transport for London announced on July 15.

Tenders are to be submitted by the end of October, and TfL expects to announce the successful bidder by March 6 2015. Deliveries are scheduled to take place between summer 2017 and spring 2018.

‘We welcome the wide international interest from the rolling stock market in bidding for this order and look forward to engaging with the chosen manufacturers to define a standard that will set a new benchmark for TfL for many years to come’, said Mike Brown, TfL’s Managing Director of London Rail. Hyundai Rotem and Stadler Bussnang had also expressed interest in the contract.

The order will comprise 31 EMUs to be deployed on services from London Liverpool Street to Enfield Town, Cheshunt (via Seven Sisters) and Chingford, as well as the Romford – Upminster line. TfL’s London Overground concessionaire LOROL is to take over these services on an interim basis from May 31 2015, operating the existing rolling stock. The services will then be merged into the overall London Overground concession when it ends in November 2016 and is re-let.

The remaining eight EMUs are to replace two-car Bombardier Class 172 diesel multiple-units operating on the Gospel Oak – Barking route which is to be electrified by summer 2017.

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/...ondon-overground-emu-shortlist-announced.html

Siemens
CAF
Bombardier
Hitachi

 

[al.currie93]

Well always good to see new rolling stock on the way, even if it is for a small area of the country!

I do love the bit about welcoming "the wide international from the rolling stock market"... it's said as if it's a surprise that they're all international bidders or that it's a first, when in fact there isn't any other option now!

 

[Dumpton Park]

It does seem a little ridiculous that Gospel Oak-Barking is still, it seems, to be operated as a self-contained branch.

Is there some special obstacle to constructing a couple of through platforms around GO somewhere to let some kind of through service operate?

DP

 

[Loki]

Congratulations to Bombardier! Rest of the people are you even trying?!

 

[NSEFAN]

TOC takes on new services and needs more trains. The rolling stock must be compatible with existing stock to reduce operational complexities and costs. Who'd have guessed the same company which built the earlier batch of stock will now be building the next?

 

[swt_passenger]

It does seem a little ridiculous that Gospel Oak-Barking is still, it seems, to be operated as a self-contained branch.

Is there some special obstacle to constructing a couple of through platforms around GO somewhere to let some kind of through service operate?

DP

Nothing special I suggest, just the usual issues of overall route capacity. If the section of route west of Gospel Oak is operating the maximum number of services NR will allow already, (including the freights), you'd have to reduce the through services on the NLL to make room for your new through services.

 

[LLivery]

I think Hitachi and CAF have a real chance here - not just the usual Bombardier Electrostar and Siemens Desiro which we've come to expect in the South. Especially as Hitachi will probably plan to build the trains in County Durham and CAF seem to be popular with Irish operators. Also, CAF are currently providing suburban trains for Auckland at the moment called the ''AM Class'' - they do look quite good. I'm very interested in see what these and the new Great Northern Suburban trains will be.

 

[Loki]

I think Hitachi and CAF have a real chance here - not just the usual Bombardier Electrostar and Siemens Desiro which we've come to expect in the South. Especially as Hitachi will probably plan to build the trains in County Durham and CAF seem to be popular with Irish operators. Also, CAF are currently providing suburban trains for Auckland at the moment called the ''AM Class'' - they do look quite good. I'm very interested in see what these and the new Great Northern Suburban trains will be.

It's a TfL overground order. It's Bombardier.

Now that Hitachi has a factory they will be getting orders outside of IPE for sure but this is not going to be the one.

 

[LLivery]

It's a TfL overground order. It's Bombardier.

Now that Hitachi has a factory they will be getting orders outside of IPE for sure but this is not going to be the one.

Hmmm I was trying to be optimistic for new variants but I suspect you're right. Though it must be said the new trams weren't Bombardier despite the older ones being so. Who ever wins please no longitudinal seating!

Slightly off topic - I'd move the 378s off the Watford DC, put them on the GOBLIN and put new, up to 8 carriage long (2+2 seating of course) on the Watford suburbans. Increase the frequency to 6tph and withdraw the Bakerloo north of Queen's Park. How the gap between the Bakerloo trains and the platform at stations north of Queen's Park passes 'elf and safety or disability laws is beyond me.

 

[Nym]

Slightly off topic - I'd move the 378s off the Watford DC, put them on the GOBLIN and put new, up to 8 carriage long (2+2 seating of course) on the Watford suburbans. Increase the frequency to 6tph and withdraw the Bakerloo north of Queen's Park. How the gap between the Bakerloo trains and the platform at stations north of Queen's Park passes 'elf and safety or disability laws is beyond me.

All sounds good, and it's grandfather rights. (You would need to have some Bakerloo services to Harrow in the peaks though)

 

[Class377/5]

TOC takes on new services and needs more trains. The rolling stock must be compatible with existing stock to reduce operational complexities and costs. Who'd have guessed the same company which built the earlier batch of stock will now be building the next?

That said Bombardier are building Class 387 Electrostar for Govia that are incompatible with any of its other Electrostars.

 

[NSEFAN]

That said Bombardier are building Class 387 Electrostar for Govia that are incompatible with any of its other Electrostars.

Not even in emergencies?

 

[Nym]

There's also the fact that you're counting on any bombardier product talking to another bombardier product. Also, since the 3 cars disappeared, I've not known any multiple working on LOROL.

 

[Class377/5]

Not even in emergencies?

They can couple in emergency but units won't be able to talk to each other meaning its last resort to do so.

 

[jopsuk]

Hmmm I was trying to be optimistic for new variants but I suspect you're right. Though it must be said the new trams weren't Bombardier despite the older ones being so. Who ever wins please no longitudinal seating!

Slightly off topic - I'd move the 378s off the Watford DC, put them on the GOBLIN and put new, up to 8 carriage long (2+2 seating of course) on the Watford suburbans. Increase the frequency to 6tph and withdraw the Bakerloo north of Queen's Park. How the gap between the Bakerloo trains and the platform at stations north of Queen's Park passes 'elf and safety or disability laws is beyond me.

Pfft, you're RUBBISH at the Crayonista lark.

So, divert the Watford DC onto the NLL, rebuilding it as four-track all the way whilst sending freight via a new london orbital, so that Watford services go to the ELL.

With the Bakerloo, have it dive back underground and run out into the West London hinterland between the GWML and Central lines.

But that's just silly. Ahem.

Regarding train length: s7 is 117.5m. S8 is 134.11m. The soon-to-be 5-car 378s will be 100m.

 

[Manchester77]

There's also the fact that you're counting on any bombardier product talking to another bombardier product. Also, since the 3 cars disappeared, I've not known any multiple working on LOROL.

Think there might have been a few 8 car runs on the NLL during the Olympics but I might be hallucinating!

 

[West Ruislip]

AT200 New Commuter Train – designed for, and to be built in the UK – which represents a significant milestone for Hitachi as it develops its manufacturing capability and design base in Britain.

https://twitter.com/HitachiAT200



www.railannouncement.com

 

[Loki]

AT200 New Commuter Train – designed for, and to be built in the UK – which represents a significant milestone for Hitachi as it develops its manufacturing capability and design base in Britain.

https://twitter.com/hashtag/AT200?src=hash



www.railannouncement.com

Quite exited about this one but the AT100s are more suitable for Overground services.

Hmmm I was trying to be optimistic for new variants but I suspect you're right. Though it must be said the new trams weren't Bombardier despite the older ones being so. Who ever wins please no longitudinal seating!

Bombardier did not bid for trams.

 

[jon0844]

AT200 New Commuter Train – designed for, and to be built in the UK – which represents a significant milestone for Hitachi as it develops its manufacturing capability and design base in Britain.

https://twitter.com/hashtag/AT200?src=hash

Unfortunate that the hashtag is shared with some advanced bidet. Unless they're one and the same...

 

[LLivery]

All sounds good, and it's grandfather rights. (You would need to have some Bakerloo services to Harrow in the peaks though)

Ah yes that makes sense, however TfL have said (well on twitter) they are looking into increasing LO services on the Watford Suburban and the only way to do this is to reduce Bakerloo Line. Agree with at peak times, however LO doing semi-fast 12tph like the Shenfield Metro could work. The Bakerloo Line is a cross-platform interchange at Queen's Park just like Stratford after all.

So, divert the Watford DC onto the NLL, rebuilding it as four-track all the way whilst sending freight via a new london orbital, so that Watford services go to the ELL.

With the Bakerloo, have it dive back underground and run out into the West London hinterland between the GWML and Central lines.

But that's just silly. Ahem.

I wouldn't go that far, the NLL is near capacity if not, at it. I'd just keep it going into London Euston. The trains are well used into Euston, its a convenient Interchange for Central London and for the WCML, MML, Thameslink, HS1 and ECML. I'd upgrade the Watford DC to 80(ish)mph standards, convert to AC power, re-signal, extend the platforms needed, add some points to the WCML around Queens Park, Wembley, Harrow and Watford. Then in any disruption Virgin/London Midland could use the local. The Bakerloo Line could then be extended Underground to Old Oak Common and possibly to Ealing Broadway via West Acton.

Bombardier did not bid for trams.

I stand corrected.

As for the AT200s I looked at these on their website a while back http://www.hitachirail-eu.com/at-200-regional_46.html and its a ''regional train'' with end gangways, like a 377 or 350. The AT100s aren't really needed on West Anglia. AT200s would be just fine, 377s work perfectly well on Southern suburbans, I use them every day - I try to avoid 378s.

 

[fusionblue]

Take all the 376's instead and add pantographs. Much easier and is perfect for requirements.

 

[jopsuk]

376s are an old design. It would, what with being modular, be possible to build 378s with 2+ transverse seating, if that's what the customer wanted. But Bombardier are far more likely to offer a version of the Aventra in their bid. As that's the current model. Unless they feel that offering 378s would be advantageous due to fleet homogeneity.

On which: how much additional work would be required to extend platforms to allow 5 car operation on GOBLIN and 10 car (200m) operation on the Lea Valley routes?

 

[LLivery]

On which: how much additional work would be required to extend platforms to allow 5 car operation on GOBLIN and 10 car (200m) operation on the Lea Valley routes?

Not much, at most stations on the GOBLIN the platforms look around 6 cars long, however half of the platform length is derelict and fenced off. Pretty easy to refurb and re-open. On the Lea Valley I believe they were built for 9 cars on the Chingford branch. I don't know about the Seven Sisters route but many are on viaducts or in steep cuttings so that would be expensive to extend.

 

[Loki]

As for the AT200s I looked at these on their website a while back http://www.hitachirail-eu.com/at-200-regional_46.html and its a ''regional train'' with end gangways, like a 377 or 350. The AT100s aren't really needed on West Anglia. AT200s would be just fine, 377s work perfectly well on Southern suburbans, I use them every day - I try to avoid 378s.

Well, the order is for 4-car train sets. Can all the platforms on the new lines accommodate 8-car sets? If they can't the gangways would useless.

 

[joeykins82]

I'm assuming that the Lea Valley services will operate as 8-car doubled up sets. That being said, the order is for 39 sets. 8 for GOBLIN, 1 for Romford-Upminster leaving 30 for Liverpool Street to Chingford, Enfield Town and Cheshunt via Seven Sisters. I think that Chingford and Enfield Town require 5 trains to run 4tph service (so 20 of the 30 sets if they're running paired up) but to increase Cheshunt to 4tph would require 6 trains. Presumably either Cheshunt will remain half-hourly or something is going to have to run as a single 4-car train.

There's also a site between Turkey Street and Theobolds Grove which I reckon has the letters TMD in its future... https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.688876,-0.0420929,947m/data=!3m1!1e3

 

[jopsuk]

Well, the order is for 4-car train sets. Can all the platforms on the new lines accommodate 8-car sets? If they can't the gangways would useless.

Current services on the Lee Valley routes double up to 8 car for much of the day. They cheerfully use 315s that don't have end gangways.

 

[swt_passenger]

There's also a site between Turkey Street and Theobolds Grove which I reckon has the letters TMD in its future...

Why should changing the operator of an existing service mean they need a new depot?

 

[joeykins82]

I just assumed that they'd need/want somewhere on the route to store them independently of wherever the GA and Crossrail fleet ends up. Having re-read the tender notice I'm probably wrong.

 

[Wolfie]

Why should changing the operator of an existing service mean they need a new depot?

Because the extant stock is currently maintained at the depot of the previous operator and likely will continue to be so (after suitable legal arrangements have been put in place) while that stock continues in use. Maintenance of new, completely different, rolling stock unfamiliar to the maintenance staff of the previous operator is a different issue....
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
LOROL will surely wish to maintain their new stock under the same arrangements as for the extant stock also.

 

[jopsuk]

Why should changing the operator of an existing service mean they need a new depot?

Can't find the Invitation to Tender, but I'd expect that like a lot of new stock the tender will be for all aspects of train provision including servicing. This will mean the stock provider will want their own facilities - expect to see these described as "state of the art"- and would likely included full train lift, bogie drop and wheel lathe- much easier and cheaper to add these to a new depot.

This will need to be constructed to allow new stock to start being commissioned before the old stock is withdrawn. Greater Anglia are not exactly blessed with excess depot and stabling space at the moment.