The political problem with that report ...
This is a technical analysis; the politics is in the eye of the beholder.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I don't. The quote was in talks with 'someone' but the end customer wanted an Electrostar bodyshell over an Aventra one. Suggests perhaps DfT and a TOC?
Thanks. It could be either, or even a potential bidder that does not currently hold a franchise. In the latter case, I would expect that they would have sounded out more than one manufacturer. There is also teh possibility that it is Rail North, whom have suggested that they would like to establish their own ROSCO - along the same lines as TfL's QW Rail Leasing Ltd.
I think the expectation is that this would be for a limited set of units (assuming that it is for pacer replacement which will partially be covered by cascades in teh coming years), may be more than one batch, but not a significant number for the combined build. It does not sound like a modification of an existing build based on what you have been able to pass on.
In that case I would expect that there would be a premium for the build over earlier unit costs for comparative DMU sets in addition to cost increases due to inflation, compliance and other technology shifts.
If it was a TOC I think they would only be looking to get an estimate of the potential costs for a number of options, and would be talking to other supplies for comparisons. if it was the DfT then the talks might be of a more advanced nature, but I would also then expect that they would have to sound out a number of manufacturers unless there is the assumption that they could construe this to be an extension to an existing order(?). That might narrow down the field a bit, both in terms of suppliers, but also operators.
If it is for a new or modified design, they would probably not be able to get the new vehicles into service before the end of CP5 allowing for authorisation (for spend around April/May 2015 at the very earliest?) design work, acceptance, production, commissioning.
By the end of CP5 the vehicle allocations would also have changed or be in a state of flux/transition due to the cascades we know about. So possibly it is an attempt to eliminate all remaining pacers that are currently planned to still be in service at that time. I'm not sure what numbers that gives. Whatever, it is only bringing forward the planned replacement by about five years or less.
Still, it is does sound a bit like election time politics.
The caveat is though that this all assumes that the UK will be able to afford to invest in the railways at current levels in the coming years; specifically if the rolling electrification program is stalled for whatever reason, then the game changes significantly, but that could also hit vehicle procurement as well.
