Bombardier win London Overground contract for 45 EMUs

[SpacePhoenix]

A poster on WNXX who is usually fairly accurate has suggested that Bombardier offered Electrostars rather than Aventra for this tender which presumably means they will be similar to existing 378's.

If that's true could the new stock actually be a new build of 378s?

 

[47802]

If that's true could the new stock actually be a new build of 378s?

Well whether they are called 378's or not, one suspects they will be similar perhaps maybe with a few updates and suggested S8 type of seating layout.

From TFL viewpoint it probably makes sense to have a similar fleet, although if they had gone with Aventra obviously they would be similar to Cross rail.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Thanks for that. Good ol' Bombardier, sticking to their word of "no more -stars after this"

Well we still do know for definite that it is the case, but if Bombardier thought that offering Electrostars gave them a better chance of winning the contract why shouldn't they offer that option.

 

[mr_jrt]

I don't see it making much difference - the inner end is predominantly shared with the relatively high frequency Bakerloo, and I'd imagine the outer end mostly serves peak hour commuter traffic which is unlikely to see much growth simply because you've added an extra train per hour.

Mixed issues here, IMHO. Being a former user of said services, given the long journey times into London the outer stations are generally quieter as you have the AC services which are much, much faster. The 20 minute timetable was the killer though, as it would often work out quicker to get off at Harrow and catch a bus than change to LO to get to my nearest station (I used to live in Bushey, so a 30ish minute bus ride from Harrow station and a 10ish minute bus ride from Bushey station). Especially if you just missed one because somehow the AC service was late having somehow lost time before even reaching its first stop out of Euston.:roll:

I wonder if you improved the capacity and the quality of the interchange at Harrow would you be able to remove all the AC stops at Bushey to increase capacity? ...or at least permit doubling back via Watford Junction.

I do think you could get away with cutting the Bakerloo back to Queens Park to mitigate the state of the rolling stock if you increased the LO levels though, and later perhaps diverting the Bakerloo (i.e. via OOC or some such) as part of a larger project when the stock finally gets replaced.

I'm a firm supporter of a reinstated Primrose Hill/Chalk Farm station linked to the Northern line to maintain links to Euston, and even if it was just to a bay at Camden Road, I think that would be a good option for LO. My ideal services are Richmond to Barking Riverside, Clapham to Stratford, Watford to New Cross, Harrow to Crystal Palace, Willesden to West Croydon and Dalston to Clapham though, with AC calls restored at Willesden. As always though, the question is that freight...

...a new tunnel from Gospel Oak to the Midland freight lines at West Hampstead would let more (if not all) go via the Goblin though, and even better if you built a station on it at Belsize Park linked to the Northern Line station.

 

[plcd1]

A poster on WNXX who is usually fairly accurate has suggested that Bombardier offered Electrostars rather than Aventra for this tender which presumably means they will be similar to existing 378's.

But then the poster says that these will be the last ones due to new regs coming in, In that case wouldn't it cause problems for the optional follow on builds?

I'm surprised there is nothing on the Bombardier website about it yet.

Interesting if they are Electrostars. That would surely give Bombardier a massive advantage price wise and also in terms of being able to demonstrate reliability and maintenance costs. It is also worth saying that TfL required the winning contractor to take on maintenance of the 172s and to manage the switch to EMUs. Bombardier would have a built in advantage on that point although it's doubtful that could be enough on its own to "swing" the deal. It's entirely logical for Bombardier to offer Electrostars if that gives them a cost advantage even if they've made previous "no more" statements. They're unlikely to shoot themselves in the foot when it comes to keeping Derby ticking over despite what was alleged in the Thameslink aftermath.

I expect Bombardier may wait until the 10 day contract standstill period has ended before making a formal announcement.

 

[Mikey C]

TfL are a massive customer for Bombardier Transportation, they must be one of their biggest globally when you consider the 2009, S7/8, 378 and Crossrail 345 orders placed with them!

 

[Chris125]

Interesting if they are Electrostars.

If they are Electrostars it would be interesting to know if they are based on the updated 387 and 377/6+7 design, or the earlier generation which I assume the Capitalstar was a variation of.

Chris

 

[100andthirty]

TfL are a massive customer for Bombardier Transportation, they must be one of their biggest globally when you consider the 2009, S7/8, 378 and Crossrail 345 orders placed with them!

And don't forget the DLR cars and the Croydon trams and the finest product ever to come out of the Derby factory - the 1992 tube stock!!!!!!?

Apropos the competition and tendering, TfL as a public body has to be (and I know it is) squeaky clean on big procurement deals like this. There's too much risk of challenge if a public body isn't squeaky clean. Contracts can and are stopped because if all sorts of process and other more dubious practices. UK railways have really good reputation for doing these thing by the book. Therefore Bombardier won the job fair and square.

 

[fgwrich]

And don't forget the DLR cars and the Croydon trams and the finest product ever to come out of the Derby factory - the 1992 tube stock!!!!!!?

Ah, the ABB Built 1992 stock that had it's bogies replaced due to cracking? Funny how Bombardier recycled the 1992 Stock design into the 2009 Stock though. Of course there was the Croydon Trams - But I don't think Bombardier seem that in favour of on the tram side as much now given the options created from the purchase of the diverted Stadler Bergen trams.

The new DLR Car contract will be the interesting one - Will they still line the pockets of a Berlin HQd French Canadian company claiming to be British or will it go to someone else with Metro experience?

TfL are a massive customer for Bombardier Transportation, they must be one of their biggest globally when you consider the 2009, S7/8, 378 and Crossrail 345 orders placed with them!

I wonder if this was born out of the Failed Metronet PPP Contract for which Bombardier were a major player in. Surprised TfL Still seems so in love with them though given the issues they've had with the 2009 Stock, Issues with the S Stock - Have they finished sending them back to Derby yet? Issues with the 172s, And most recently the cancelled Sub Surface Lines Signalling Contract. Seems Derby continually disappoint but weirdly still continually to get rewarded. Why?

 

[po8crg]

The Manchester Metrolink Tram-Trains, the replacement Tyne & Wear Metro stock and the next DLR order are likely to have very similar specifications.

I wonder if there will be any co-ordination?

 

[Olaf]

One of the others things with going with Bombardier is that the trains would are made in this country as anything from Hitachi, would probably have to be made in Japan to be able to cope with the timescales that are needed for the trains.

Hitachi have spare capacity in their recently acquired Italian plants - if they are not closed in the near future. Will make unit costs lower than Bombardier's. Likewise, CAF's price differential will continue to move in it's favour.

 

[47802]

Ah, the ABB Built 1992 stock that had it's bogies replaced due to cracking? Funny how Bombardier recycled the 1992 Stock design into the 2009 Stock though. Of course there was the Croydon Trams - But I don't think Bombardier seem that in favour of on the tram side as much now given the options created from the purchase of the diverted Stadler Bergen trams.

The new DLR Car contract will be the interesting one - Will they still line the pockets of a Berlin HQd French Canadian company claiming to be British or will it go to someone else with Metro experience?



I wonder if this was born out of the Failed Metronet PPP Contract for which Bombardier were a major player in. Surprised TfL Still seems so in love with them though given the issues they've had with the 2009 Stock, Issues with the S Stock - Have they finished sending them back to Derby yet? Issues with the 172s, And most recently the cancelled Sub Surface Lines Signalling Contract. Seems Derby continually disappoint but weirdly still continually to get rewarded. Why?

According to a recent press release Bombardier and TFL got best new rolling stock product award at the 2015 Railtex awards for the S Stock and is now getting good reliability out of the S stock and exceptional reliability out of the 2009 stock.

While this will clearly be a welcome order for Bombardier the big one will be who wins the contract for the new Tube stock.

They perhaps know what their customer is looking for better than the others in the case of TFL.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

According to a recent press release Bombardier and TFL got best new rolling stock product award at the 2015 Railtex awards for the S Stock and is now getting good reliability out of the S stock and exceptional reliability out of the 2009 stock.

While this will clearly be a welcome order for Bombardier the big one will be who wins the contract for the new Tube stock.

They perhaps know what their customer is looking for better than the others in the case of TFL.

A quick semi-off-topic question, could 2009 stock if ordered be used on the Island Line or would it be too tall?

 

[Dstock7080]

A quick semi-off-topic question, could 2009 stock if ordered be used on the Island Line or would it be too tall?

Both at 2883mm from rail height.

 

[TheNewNo2]

According to a recent press release Bombardier ... is now getting ... exceptional reliability out of the 2009 stock.

And yet they're still not as reliable as the 1973 stock on the Piccadilly Line.

 

[Chris125]

A quick semi-off-topic question, could 2009 stock if ordered be used on the Island Line or would it be too tall?

Height shouldn't be an issue for any deep tube design, bear in mind that Merseyrail 503s were seriously considered at the time of their withdrawal - length and width are as much an issue.

 

[swt_passenger]

There seem to be a few articles about this that refer to a '249 vehicle option' as though it means 249 additional vehicles, e.g. this one from Raiway Gazette:

The order includes an option for up to 249 additional cars, to be used for train lengthening and possible future extensions of the Overground network

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/...dier-wins-london-overground-emu-contract.html

I don't think this is correct, the original TfL board paper list of possible options for additional vehicles suggests to me that the option is to take the total order up to 249 from the initial 180 vehicles. Hence 69 extra possibilities for the small number of extensions etc?

Anybody else reading it as 249 possible extras, or should it be 69?

 

[WatcherZero]

Its the only one that's put a number on so could just be a typo meaning total rather than extra, non of the other news reports have put a number on options.

 

[Stats]

I think it is total, but the TfL board paper from last week seeking approval to award the contract uses similar wording.
Www.railtechnologymagazine.com/rail-news/new-overground-rolling-stock-contract-to-be-approved

Priced options are included in the MSA for up to 249 cars for train lengthening to 5 car and/or additional trains... .

 

[Mikey C]

Ah, the ABB Built 1992 stock that had it's bogies replaced due to cracking? Funny how Bombardier recycled the 1992 Stock design into the 2009 Stock though. Of course there was the Croydon Trams - But I don't think Bombardier seem that in favour of on the tram side as much now given the options created from the purchase of the diverted Stadler Bergen trams.

The new DLR Car contract will be the interesting one - Will they still line the pockets of a Berlin HQd French Canadian company claiming to be British or will it go to someone else with Metro experience?



I wonder if this was born out of the Failed Metronet PPP Contract for which Bombardier were a major player in. Surprised TfL Still seems so in love with them though given the issues they've had with the 2009 Stock, Issues with the S Stock - Have they finished sending them back to Derby yet? Issues with the 172s, And most recently the cancelled Sub Surface Lines Signalling Contract. Seems Derby continually disappoint but weirdly still continually to get rewarded. Why?

I wonder what might have happened if Alstom hadn't committed commercial suicide in the UK with the Coradia/Juniper problems and Washwood Heath closure seeing that Metro-Cammell were THE main supplier to LT for decades, and the 1995/96 stock well regarded

 

[D365]

I wonder what might have happened if Alstom hadn't committed commercial suicide in the UK with the Coradia/Juniper problems and Washwood Heath closure seeing that Metro-Cammell were THE main supplier to LT for decades, and the 1995/96 stock well regarded

Don't forget the outstanding tender for a 1995/96 stock 'clone', for expansion of the Northern and Jubilee line fleets.

 

[Chris125]

Anybody else reading it as 249 possible extras, or should it be 69?

If all 45 units were extended and the Barking Riverside, STAR, higher frequencies etc all took place then 249 seems quite legitimate.

Interestingly Roger Ford on twitter has mentioned that 'informed sources' suggest this will be an Aventra order.

 

[JaJaWa]

I'd presume these are going to be very similar to the Crossrail units, just 4 cars long and with an inter-train gangway? The seating arrangement could even be very similar.

 

[jopsuk]

They'll be different to the Crossrail units- they'll be 20m carriages (80m units) with presumably two doors per side. I haven't seen anything that says they'll have an inter-train gangway? All will be made clearer in good time. They may not even have a cab-end emergency escape door- can't think of anywhere on the routes it would be required?

 

[Chris125]

They'll be different to the Crossrail units- they'll be 20m carriages (80m units) with presumably two doors per side. I haven't seen anything that says they'll have an inter-train gangway? All will be made clearer in good time. They may not even have a cab-end emergency escape door- can't think of anywhere on the routes it would be required?

Might the single-bore tunnels on the Watford DC require end doors?

 

[argonaut56d]

Might the single-bore tunnels on the Watford DC require end doors?

Nope. The end doors on our 378's were put there solely for the ELL.

And boy does that door restrict your view on a right hand side platform!!! I'd say by about 30 feet? Makes it a pain hitting the stop boards.

So we are hoping we get a lovely all the way across windscreen like the 172's have on the GOB.

 

[Class377/5]

Been confirmed to press they are to be Aventra not Electrostars.

 

[argonaut56d]

Been confirmed to press they are to be Aventra not Electrostars.

Where abouts? Haven't seen anything yet myself. Be nice to have different traction to always 378's.

 

[3141]

The new DLR Car contract will be the interesting one - Will they still line the pockets of a Berlin HQd French Canadian company claiming to be British or will it go to someone else with Metro experience?

Yes, I noticed your "lining the pockets" bit the first time, back in post no. 7. Do you have any evidence of the dishonesty and corruption that your choice of words hints at?

Others have already pointed out that Bombardier will have put in the best bid, and TfL have good reasons for wanting more of the same because of more efficient maintenance and staff training factors.

Surprised TfL Still seems so in love with them though given the issues they've had with the 2009 Stock, Issues with the S Stock - Have they finished sending them back to Derby yet? Issues with the 172s, And most recently the cancelled Sub Surface Lines Signalling Contract. Seems Derby continually disappoint but weirdly still continually to get rewarded. Why?

Problems with a new design of stock are nothing new. The 1938 tube stock needed many modifications in its early years. More recently, class 175 and 458 had a terrible reliability to start with.

I believe much of the signalling contract work was carried out in Canada. After all, they are a multi-national company, as you have observed.

If TfL obtained all their rolling stock from a company which assembled it abroad we'd have threads on here bemoaning their reliance on foreign suppliers and the lack of work for British factories. Somebody always gripes. The most likely situation is that customers choose the supplier who most effectively meets their requirements at the best price.

 

[Nym]

Or that TfL picks Bombardier because it's strongarmed into doing so by the GLA Board.

"Must buy from 'British' Company..." (even though our bikes are from Canada...)

 

[Class377/5]

Where abouts? Haven't seen anything yet myself. Be nice to have different traction to always 378's.

Its not yet anywhere, just been told by various sources.