ScotRail Suburban Fleet (EMU and BEMU) Market Engagement

[RichardAsh1981]

And the governing bodies continues to do so!

To be fair to those who write tender specifications, having read and responded to many of them, it is entirely possible to put too few requirements in as well as too many. The risk of a specification with insufficient (correct) detail is that there will be bids which are not fit for purpose, but meet the published specification. If the buyer has insufficient technical knowledge (and the bidder clever lawyers) then it can be hard to reject the unsuitable bid and accept a better one. This is regardless of costs, the legal requirements being that all bids are evaluated in the same way using the criteria laid out (and communicated to bidders) at the start. The latter can be big trouble, because it means new exclusions / marking down cannot be introduced for the "no-one would be stupid enough..." Ideas if a bidder does in fact bid them.

The DfT problem is not detail per se but insufficient expertise in both specifying it and then evaluating it. I expect it drives the bidders up the wall as well - it certainly does me! I take the level of Market Engagement here as a positive here, because suppliers have had the opportunity to set out the product they want to supply, and the buyers have the opportunity to pick from those the features they want to prioritise when they go to tender.

 

[D365]

To be fair to those who write tender specifications, having read and responded to many of them, it is entirely possible to put too few requirements in as well as too many. The risk of a specification with insufficient (correct) detail is that there will be bids which are not fit for purpose, but meet the published specification. If the buyer has insufficient technical knowledge (and the bidder clever lawyers) then it can be hard to reject the unsuitable bid and accept a better one. This is regardless of costs, the legal requirements being that all bids are evaluated in the same way using the criteria laid out (and communicated to bidders) at the start. The latter can be big trouble, because it means new exclusions / marking down cannot be introduced for the "no-one would be stupid enough..." Ideas if a bidder does in fact bid them.

The DfT problem is not detail per se but insufficient expertise in both specifying it and then evaluating it. I expect it drives the bidders up the wall as well - it certainly does me! I take the level of Market Engagement here as a positive here, because suppliers have had the opportunity to set out the product they want to supply, and the buyers have the opportunity to pick from those the features they want to prioritise when they go to tender.

I agree that it's never easy to prepare technical and commercial specifications with exactly the right level of detail. Certainly not a job that I envy.

I remember a few years back flicking through a paper copy of the technical specifications for what would become the Class 156 - it's certainly not an activity that DfT or DFTO is able to replicate today without bringing in external consultants. And I have a feeling that GBR won't have that capability either for some time yet.

 

[absolutelymilk]

The risk of a specification with insufficient (correct) detail is that there will be bids which are not fit for purpose, but meet the published specification. If the buyer has insufficient technical knowledge (and the bidder clever lawyers) then it can be hard to reject the unsuitable bid and accept a better one. This is regardless of costs, the legal requirements being that all bids are evaluated in the same way using the criteria laid out (and communicated to bidders) at the start. The latter can be big trouble, because it means new exclusions / marking down cannot be introduced for the "no-one would be stupid enough..." Ideas if a bidder does in fact bid them.

Completely agree - wonder if there have to be clauses in there saying things like "the new units must have windows of at least a certain size". I can imagine bidders trying to get away with all sorts if not!

 

[D365]

Completely agree - wonder if there have to be clauses in there saying things like "the new units must have windows of at least a certain size". I can imagine bidders trying to get away with all sorts if not!

No comment…

 

[ic31420]

I agree that it's never easy to prepare technical and commercial specifications with exactly the right level of detail. Certainly not a job that I envy.

I remember a few years back flicking through a paper copy of the technical specifications for what would become the Class 156 - it's certainly not an activity that DfT or DFTO is able to replicate today without bringing in external consultants. And I have a feeling that GBR won't have that capability either for some time yet.

Writing a spec sounds easy.... but it's not.

In the course or my employment I use a third party produced computer system built for the public sector to their spec by tender.

Its a mess

Tender said (for example) it must have a list of vegetables in a drop down box that users can select from and supplied the list of vegetables. This was uploaded.

When the product was delivered the vegetables weren't in any order, when this was questioned they simply and curtly said you didn't specify an order or sorting. Id you want add it, that'll be £xxxx.

Some months later Avocados became inexplicably to me trendy and we needed to add them to the list. To cut a long story short the list is hard coded into the system and to add or change something meant taking the whole system offline. Our lot cried we thought it would be a little database table somewhere like our old system.... They said, NOPE you didn't specify that, so we didn't do it, we can do it, but it'll be six months and £xxxxxx.

Another favourite is a free text box that requires upwards of a page of A4 writing in it. 4" x 2"

Or a box that is two text lines deep but when you click the scrollbars it moves 4 lines at a time.

No tab index set, in an industry where most of our systems tab across.

can all be changed but it costs £xxxx


Now I see why you'd want to employ a consultant to get it right or at least export the risk.... But it seems the consultants are as big scoundrels as the suppliers and have also absolved themselves or responsibility

 

[matchmaker]

I have to say that having retired from the construction industry after the pandemic, I do not miss preparing PQQ (pre qualification questionnaires) or ITT in the slightest!

 

[Snow1964]

As it's now Friday 26th September, getting close to the estimated date for Invitation to tender (Monday 29th September)

Wonder what it will actually say when it is published

ScotRail Suburban Fleet (EMU and BEMU) Market Engagement - Find a Tender

www.find-tender.service.gov.uk

 

[SC318250]

I dont think announcement will happen Monday due to it being a Glasgow public holiday. Probably week commencing 29 Sept

 

[norbitonflyer]

Has anyone ever calculated the costs of preparing all the unsuccessful competitive tenders over the years? Ultimately the customer pays of course, because if the company is to remain solvent it must recover the costs of its unsuccessful bids in the price it charges for the successful ones.

How much more economically efficient was it when most rolling stock was built in-house?

Similar question must arise with all the unsuccessful bidders for TOCs, bus operations in London, etc

 

[D365]

How much more economically efficient was it when most rolling stock was built in-house?

BREL still had to tender for rolling stock contracts. Class 150 and Class 465 spring to mind.

 

[Mollman]

Has anyone ever calculated the costs of preparing all the unsuccessful competitive tenders over the years? Ultimately the customer pays of course, because if the company is to remain solvent it must recover the costs of its unsuccessful bids in the price it charges for the successful ones.

How much more economically efficient was it when most rolling stock was built in-house?

Similar question must arise with all the unsuccessful bidders for TOCs, bus operations in London, etc

BR had to have multiple suppliers so the likes of Leyland had to bid for work. Even in steam days batches of engines were often built by outside companies.

The issue is that what you have to do to bid has become more complicated and expensive to do.

 

[anthannan]

Low floors is not an exclusive feature of FLIRTs. All of the manufacturers have realised that, going forward, all multiple units will have this requirement.

Exactly.

 

[Struner]

Low floors is not an exclusive feature of FLIRTs. All of the manufacturers have realised that, going forward, all multiple units will have this requirement.

& travelers are eagerly awaiting the implementation of the idea by the infrastructure moguls

 

[norbitonflyer]

BR had to have multiple suppliers so the likes of Leyland had to bid for work. Even in steam days batches of engines were often built by outside companies.

The issue is that what you have to do to bid has become more complicated and expensive to do.

Dual sourcing was imposed on British Rail during the 1980s, particularly for the Pacers, Super Sprinters (155/156) and Networkers (465/466). Prior to that outside contractors were generally only used when there was not enough in-house capacity, most notably during the Modernisation Plan era - c1955-1970. And when contractors they were used, they often built to the same design as the in-house examples - see the Black Fives, or Class 56.

Leyland Bus was still in Government ownership when the Class 142s and 155s were ordered. Indeed it is not impossible that the orders were placed with them in order to make the business more saleable when the Government decided to privatise it in 1985. The market for conventional buses had slumped as the short-lived fashion for minibuses took hold after deregulation of the bus industry and the sell-off of the National Bus Company.

 

[Snow1964]

I dont think announcement will happen Monday due to it being a Glasgow public holiday. Probably week commencing 29 Sept

Although the notice indicated estimated date of publication of contract as 29th Sept, still no sign of any tender yet.
I know week isn't yet up, but very little seems to be published on Fridays these days.

ScotRail Suburban Fleet (EMU and BEMU) Market Engagement - Find a Tender

www.find-tender.service.gov.uk

 

[waverley47]

From what I gather, they might have received more expressions of interest than they expected

 

[TrainViation]

Unrelated to ScotRail's fleet procurement, I've found this online, which could have some relations to what ScotRail COULD order.

 

[AilsaBus]

Surely 41 EMUs isn't enough to replace all of the 318s and 320s? And what about the 334s? They'll be sniffing 30 years old by time any new stock enters service. It would seem more sensible to replace them at the same time with a single class of EMU.

 

[hexagon789]

Surely 41 EMUs isn't enough to replace all of the 318s and 320s? And what about the 334s? They'll be sniffing 30 years old by time any new stock enters service. It would seem more sensible to replace them at the same time with a single class of EMU.

The suggestion was that the units may be of double length fixed formation, so would be equivalent in length to a double 318/320 set but as one indivisible trainset.

 

[Brubulus]

The suggestion was that the units may be of double length fixed formation, so would be equivalent in length to a double 318/320 set but as one indivisible trainset.

They're replacing 55 old trains with the equivalent of 82 new ones. That seems slightly excessive when each new train will likely be an overall capacity increase compared to a pair of old ones, despite recent electrification. The 334s are a decent sized fleet that will probably survive through 2040 at least.

Unrelated to ScotRail's fleet procurement, I've found this online, which could have some relations to what ScotRail COULD order.

The number of pure EMUs stated there seems excessive, I'm sure Phase 1, Lot 2s EMUs are actually MMUs, but that's for the Northern thread.

 

[JumpinTrainz]

They're replacing 55 old trains with the equivalent of 82 new ones. That seems slightly excessive when each new train will likely be an overall capacity increase compared to a pair of old ones, despite recent electrification. The 334s were among the last trains to not have AC, which does strengthen the case for their replacement, though it's clear that it's not

The number of pure EMUs stated there seems excessive, I'm sure Phase 1, Lot 2s EMUs are actually MMUs, but that's for the Northern thread.

The 334s have air con now though?

 

[380101]

The 334s have air con now though?

Yes. They had air-conditioning fitted a few years ago.

 

[waverley47]

From what I gather, they might have received more expressions of interest than they expected

Can now confirm that over twenty different companies expressed an interest, including at least one company offering to explore a battery retrofit of an existing UK EMU. I am assuming those would be the 350/2s, simply by process of elimination. The expected number of expressions of interest was between five and ten, so having more than double the number of companies interested is obviously slowing things down.

Current conversations have centred around storage and maintenance space, and which features will be included. As I understand, concerns were raised over through gangways between units and the unit's acceleration/braking profiles, as well as the potential issues with a low floor design fitting inside GB loading gauge for BEMU stock.

In addition, the current problems emerging with Alstom's new fleet for the Dublin LUAS, some of which may be subject to legal proceedings, and in particular the battery performance and longevity have given food for thought. It appears that the battery supplier for their BEMUs has been unable to provide a product that meets the specifications, and current concerns over said battery supplier potentially being involved in this tender have led to a pause while more information is gathered about the issue, and how it can be avoided.

 

[TrainViation]

Can now confirm that over twenty different companies expressed an interest, including at least one company offering to explore a battery retrofit of an existing UK EMU. I am assuming those would be the 350/2s, simply by process of elimination. The expected number of expressions of interest was between five and ten, so having more than double the number of companies interested is obviously slowing things down.

Current conversations have centred around storage and maintenance space, and which features will be included. As I understand, concerns were raised over through gangways between units and the unit's acceleration/braking profiles, as well as the potential issues with a low floor design fitting inside GB loading gauge for BEMU stock.

In addition, the current problems emerging with Alstom's new fleet for the Dublin LUAS, some of which may be subject to legal proceedings, and in particular the battery performance and longevity have given food for thought. It appears that the battery supplier for their BEMUs has been unable to provide a product that meets the specifications, and current concerns over said battery supplier potentially being involved in this tender have led to a pause while more information is gathered about the issue, and how it can be avoided.

Wow, Class 350s? I never imagined that could be a possibility. I wouldn't mind seeing them on the Fife network not going to lie. (Although they would need a HEAVY refurb)
Glad to see this tender is finally getting somewhere however, thanks for the update!

 

[waverley47]

Wow, Class 350s? I never imagined that could be a possibility. I wouldn't mind seeing them on the Fife network not going to lie. (Although they would need a HEAVY refurb)
Glad to see this tender is finally getting somewhere however, thanks for the update!

From what I gather, the answer to that was a firm four letter word...

 

[TrainViation]

From what I gather, the answer to that was a firm four letter word...

I can see why it's been rejected however. Nearly ancient electric stock which has been run up and down south England for the past 20 years.

Would've been a funny short term fix though, if they were able to get the batteries for it. Even if it was a few (like how the 365s operated on the E-G) on Leven only services when the Leven line is electrified.

 

[hwl]

the battery supplier for their BEMUs has been unable to provide a product that meets the specifications, and current concerns over said battery supplier potentially being involved in this tender have led to a pause while more information is gathered about the issue, and how it can be avoided.

A former wheelie bin manufacturer that decided to move up the value chain had a low probability of ending well... but they are French which will have ticked an Alstom box at some point.

 

[FlybeDash8Q400]

From what I gather, the answer to that was a firm four letter word...

The 350’s are not really any good for this spec. Only if they wanted to put those on say Ayrshire/Inverclyde and cascade the 380’s might it work, but all you’d do there is put 380’s on Glasgow Central suburban stuff (not Argyle Line) and Lanark and then move the displaced 385’s for battery use. Too much moving about for not a lot of long term gain in any case. Would only free up about 10-15 3 car 385’s and bin the small number of extra 156’s that had been kept for East Kilbride. Then you’d be lucky to get 10-15 years out of the 350’s anyway.

New stock is the way to go, so let’s see what happens once it’s narrowed down a bit.

 

[Snow1964]

Can now confirm that over twenty different companies expressed an interest, including at least one company offering to explore a battery retrofit of an existing UK EMU. I am assuming those would be the 350/2s, simply by process of elimination. The expected number of expressions of interest was between five and ten, so having more than double the number of companies interested is obviously slowing things down.

Anyone want to guess 20+ companies

I would assume : Alstom, CAF, Hitachi, Siemens, Stadler, Talgo

Probably add in some of the Eastern European companies that have step-changed in recent years : Škoda (Czech), Newag (Poland), etc

Almost certainly some Asian manufacturers: Hyundai-Rotem (South Korea), CRRC (China), Mitsui (Japan), perhaps others Kawasaki, Tokyo Car etc

Maybe some from Turkey, Canada, South Africa, Australia or South America etc. (sorry I don't have a clue who builds modern EMUs and BEMUs in these countries)

 

[Rab Smith]

Anyone want to guess 20+ companies

I would assume : Alstom, CAF, Hitachi, Siemens, Stadler, Talgo

Probably add in some of the Eastern European companies that have step-changed in recent years : Škoda (Czech), Newag (Poland), etc

Almost certainly some Asian manufacturers: Hyundai-Rotem (South Korea), CRRC (China), Mitsui (Japan), perhaps others Kawasaki, Tokyo Car etc

Maybe some from Turkey, Canada, South Africa, Australia or South America etc. (sorry I don't have a clue who builds modern EMUs and BEMUs in these countries)

Australian NSW railways have introduced 2 new fleets recently. The Mariyung sets built by Hyundai Rotem in Changwong, South Korea. They are to replace the V set Intercity trains and the R sets built by CAF in Beasain, Spain. They were required to replace the Intercity XPT sets which are roughly as old as our HST's.