Alstom win order for ten new class 345s

[Nym]

What else would they be though?
Would they really do a full redesign when they can just grab the 345 instructions from 4 years ago and find some new suppliers.

Because new standards have been issued since and there at minimum will need to be an extensive concessions list for those which have been updated between the two contract issue dates. (As I've said before).

Also, "Just find some new suppliers."

I'm not sure just how many words can be used to describe just how many businesses in Alstom Litchurch Lane's supply chain were forced into single customer situations and then went bankrupt as a result of the closure. And that not even touching those who are a victim of "business practices" over the years.

 

[D7666]

Because new standards have been issued since and there at minimum will need to be an extensive concessions list for those which have been updated between the two contract issue dates. (As I've said before).

Does that apply though ? And that was a question not a statement.

They are taking up options on the original order. The original order was 65 units (345 001-065) + 18 options; 5 options already taken up (345 066-070); so this latest 10 is taking up the original contract options, still leaving 3 more on option.

Sure there will be changes due to COTS manufacturing cycles, different suppliers, and just the shift from Bombardier to Alstom will impact, etc, but the 10 are still options on the original order.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

While the options certainly existed in the original contract, it's not certain they are still current, particularly on price.
The railway mostly misses out on such options because so much time is taken after the initial order with acceptance and service introduction, before there a decision to order more.

 

[OrangeJuice]

The logic was obvious, and ALL the underground station platforms in the Core were built to the 11-car length. The extra car length at each end is not currently provided with platform edge doors. Quite apparent when you look at them. I'm pretty sure that people at Bombardier understood what was being done here.

The issues are elsewhere. There are already surface stations in the suburbs with two cars locked out. The ORR would never accept four cars locked out. I also believe the Old Oak sidings cannot be extended by another two cars; there was spare ground there at the start of the project, but somebody sold off the land for flats to be built there right up to the buffers .

Thameslink call at stations with 8 out of 12 coaches locked out (i.e. only 4 platformed) so why would ORR have an issue with 4 out of 11 on cross rail being locked out?
Or is this more of a grandfather rights issue and stations such as Faygate being ok with 12 car trains calling

 

[D365]

Also, "Just find some new suppliers."

understatement indeed!

 

[Horizon22]

The issues are elsewhere. There are already surface stations in the suburbs with two cars locked out. The ORR would never accept four cars locked out. I also believe the Old Oak sidings cannot be extended by another two cars; there was spare ground there at the start of the project, but somebody sold off the land for flats to be built there right up to the buffers .

It's not THAT close; there's a service road and a tiny bit of parking. It might well be possible but it will be very close. The flats and buffers are visible on Google Maps.

 

[JonathanH]

Thameslink call at stations with 8 out of 12 coaches locked out (i.e. only 4 platformed) so why would ORR have an issue with 4 out of 11 on cross rail being locked out?
Or is this more of a grandfather rights issue and stations such as Faygate being ok with 12 car trains calling

There is a massive difference between calling at Faygate with eight coaches locked out and calling at Maryland with four coaches locked out. The performance risk would be an issue at an inner suburban station in a way it isn't at a rural station towards the end of the journey.

 

[stuu]

Not all Underground stations. Only Paddington lower level is 9 car Length. Unless of course it has any extra space hidden behind the platform end walls.

The box at Paddington is 264m long, it is designed to be expandable just like the other central stations

 

[Busman]

What else would they be though?
Would they really do a full redesign when they can just grab the 345 instructions from 4 years ago and find some new suppliers.

I don't think it's quite the same as reading the instructions and building a wardrobe from
Ikea.

Although it could be argued, building a 345 would probably be easier to build than an ikea wardrobe.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Jun 2024 ==

 

[physics34]

Should build them with toilets and then add them to the rest of the fleet

 

[NSEWonderer]

The box at Paddington is 264m long, it is designed to be expandable just like the other central stations

I thought it might be the case as currently indeed it fits a 9car but unlike the other stations there aren't any extra PSD panels where more doors could go but as you mention there has be allowance behind the closed ends for 264m.

Abbey-Wood can already fit an 11 car on both platforms with much modifications if need be from what I've seen.

I do wonder if it ever did happen that 11 cars would be restricted to COS only running especially during the peak.

 

[Goldfish62]

[deleted]

 

[swt_passenger]

It's not THAT close; there's a service road and a tiny bit of parking. It might well be possible but it will be very close. The flats and buffers are visible on Google Maps.

I reckon you could get much of a single car length at the London end, and at least another at the country end. The maintenance roads in the shed might be a different matter, but it looks as if ‘no room for 11 car’ in the stabling area might be one of those enduring myths…

 

[Horizon22]

Should build them with toilets and then add them to the rest of the fleet

Not going to happen. It's an intensive metro service, standing and seating space takes priority.

I reckon you could get much of a single car length at the London end, and at least another at the country end. The maintenance roads in the shed might be a different matter, but it looks as if ‘no room for 11 car’ in the stabling area might be one of those enduring myths…

Indeed!

 

[hwl]

I reckon you could get much of a single car length at the London end, and at least another at the country end. The maintenance roads in the shed might be a different matter, but it looks as if ‘no room for 11 car’ in the stabling area might be one of those enduring myths…

Indeed!

of the 32 sidings;
19 are already 10car length
13 are already 11car length or greater

Therefore only 1 extra car length required at the Western end which is do-able.

 

[physics34]

Not going to happen. It's an intensive metro service, standing and seating space takes priority.




== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Jun 2024 ==

Yep, but it should. stratford to maidenhead a long way to go on a friday night with a full bladder! Even more annoying that the thames turbos had that facility.

 

[PGAT]

Yep, but it should. stratford to maidenhead a long way to go on a friday night with a full bladder! Even more annoying that the thames turbos had that facility.

There is no direct Stratford to Maidenhead service so you would have to change somewhere. There would be facilities at the station

 

[Horizon22]

Yep, but it should. stratford to maidenhead a long way to go on a friday night with a full bladder! Even more annoying that the thames turbos had that facility.

There is no direct service. Maidenhead - Canary Wharf and Brentwood - C. London are probably some of the longest journeys that would have a reliable passenger flow. If you really need to go to change at Paddington, use the facilities and hop on a GWR 387 for Maidenhead.

And 165/166s are not fit for a metro passenger service. Catering stock to a very specific "night out" crowd is not going to be effective as stock that is used every weekday 0700-0900 & 1600-1900. Every Elizabeth line station has toilet facilities.

 

[physics34]

There is no direct service. Maidenhead - Canary Wharf and Brentwood - C. London are probably some of the longest journeys that would have a reliable passenger flow. If you really need to go to change at Paddington, use the facilities and hop on a GWR 387 for Maidenhead.

And 165/166s are not fit for a metro passenger service. Catering stock to a very specific "night out" crowd is not going to be effective as stock that is used every weekday 0700-0900 & 1600-1900. Every Elizabeth line station has toilet facilities.

Tis a valid point, but in my opinion they should. The loss of 20 seats (two loos per 9 car) is not extreme.

 

[PGAT]

Tis a valid point, but in my opinion they should. The loss of 20 seats (two loos per 9 car) is not extreme.

It’s not necessarily about the loss of seating space but more standing space

 

[Non Multi]

Tis a valid point, but in my opinion they should. The loss of 20 seats (two loos per 9 car) is not extreme.

But they already have toilet facilities. As we all found out last November, you can have a 'nature break' via the cab door!

 

[GEC465]

Will they actually be identical 345s or might we expect minor differences in trim or similar, based on whatever is available?

Different door buttons and stuff like that.

Different wheel hubcaps(?) to with Alstom branding and with USB sockets from new rather than the retrofitted ones and will be built with all the mods that were done I imagine

 

[Snow1964]

It isn't clear who is paying what for the trains, but no Rosco has been mentioned so far.
The Alstom announcement is in Euros, not Sterling.
The DfT contribution is £220.5 million, which is presumably for the purchase, with separate TfL funding for the maintenance.
It's still north of £2 million per coach, but then the cabs are complicated with three signalling standards.

The DfT announcement says this: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...-for-tfl-to-procure-new-elizabeth-line-trains

Just for a price comparison. The new Madrid metro order (with CAF) is euro400m (slightly less than €430m or £370m)

That gets 40 trains of 6car (240 vehicles) compared to Elizabeth lines 90 vehicles. Roughly 2.7 times as many vehicles for similar price.

CAF | Construcciones y Auxiliar de Ferrocarriles

We are CAF, a global leader in urban and interurban mobility, including comprehensive rail and bus systems. We provide bespoke solutions across all phases, from feasibility studies to commissioning and operational management.

www.caf.net

 

[Sunil_P]

I hope they have Class 710-style interior-side door-mounted buttons! Always a pain to have someone grope behind you when you stand near the doors!

 

[Goldfish62]

I hope they have Class 710-style interior-side door-mounted buttons! Always a pain to have someone grope behind you when you stand near the doors!

It wouldn't be a good idea to have the door buttons in a different location to the existing fleet.

 

[stuu]

Just for a price comparison. The new Madrid metro order (with CAF) is euro400m (slightly less than €430m or £370m)

That gets 40 trains of 6car (240 vehicles) compared to Elizabeth lines 90 vehicles. Roughly 2.7 times as many vehicles for similar price.

CAF | Construcciones y Auxiliar de Ferrocarriles

We are CAF, a global leader in urban and interurban mobility, including comprehensive rail and bus systems. We provide bespoke solutions across all phases, from feasibility studies to commissioning and operational management.

www.caf.net

Smaller vehicles which are technically much simpler - one signalling system and DC power. Works out to about half as much per metre of train

 

[Sunil_P]

It wouldn't be a good idea to have the door buttons in a different location to the existing fleet.

In addition to the door buttons located on the walls. Class 710s have all three interior buttons. One on each wall, one on the inner face of the door.

 

[hwl]

Just for a price comparison. The new Madrid metro order (with CAF) is euro400m (slightly less than €430m or £370m)

That gets 40 trains of 6car (240 vehicles) compared to Elizabeth lines 90 vehicles. Roughly 2.7 times as many vehicles for similar price.

CAF | Construcciones y Auxiliar de Ferrocarriles

We are CAF, a global leader in urban and interurban mobility, including comprehensive rail and bus systems. We provide bespoke solutions across all phases, from feasibility studies to commissioning and operational management.

www.caf.net

You aren't doing a like for like comparison though.
The capital cost of the 345s is £220.5m not ~£370m.
345 is £2.45m per vehicle
CAF metro is €1.67m per vehicle (circa £1.48m) which is 65% more per vehicle and as others have said the metro vehicles are far shorter.
At least a third of the price difference is due to the 345s being a small order.

 

[OneTrackMinded]

345s have different software to the other Aventras. It's jerryrigged version of the Capitalstar TMS, with the additional safety systems and other new components on top. The question is, will they apply this same software to the new 345s, or move to pure Aventra? I'd assume the former to keep fleet compatibility and consistency, although maybe they'd want to move the old ones over at some point too, especially with the announcement of that new driver speed recommendation software they're going to be adding to the fleet

 

[Horizon22]

345s have different software to the other Aventras. It's jerryrigged version of the Capitalstar TMS, with the additional safety systems and other new components on top. The question is, will they apply this same software to the new 345s, or move to pure Aventra? I'd assume the former to keep fleet compatibility and consistency, although maybe they'd want to move the old ones over at some point too, especially with the announcement of that new driver speed recommendation software they're going to be adding to the fleet

Let’s not forget the original 345 software and the current 345 software are now worlds apart.