GNWR application to Network Rail

[ainsworth74]

And I can confirm that "from the horse's mouth" so to speak.

Do CSRE have any idea where they might site an assembly plant?

 

[anthony263]

I am sure i read somewhere that one proposed site was in south wales, and i think another was in the north west of england

 

[Aictos]

Do CSRE have any idea where they might site an assembly plant?

If CSRE want support at both local and national level then Derby would be a good place to consider, they could in theory takeover the existing Bombardier works there which would save quite a bit on setting up a new factory as most of the infrastructure is already there rather then having to set up a brand new site when a existing one is good enough to use.

 

[tbtc]

Virgin could use the paths they have currently to run the following hourly pattern with more 11 car Pendolinos:
* Glasgow to Euston with additional call at Crewe to set down only southbound and to pick up only northbound. 11 car Pendolino.
* Manchester to London via Stoke with calls at Stockport, Macclesfield and Stoke. 11 car Pendolino.
* Manchester to London via Wilmslow with calls at Stockport and Wilmslow and possibly call at Crewe to set down only southbound and to pick up only northbound. 11 car Pendolino.
* Stoke to London via Birmingham with call at Wolverhampton. 11 car Pendolino. (existing call pattern south of Birmingham)
* Birmingham to London x 2. 9 car Pendolinos. (existing call patterns south of Birmingham)
* Liverpool to London. 9 car Pendolino. (existing call pattern)
* Liverpool to London. 9 car Pendolino. Calling at Crewe and Milton Keynes Central.
* North Wales to London - remains same as now

You are suggesting cutting one of the Manchester services (with Stoke having a replacement by extending the EBW)?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If CSRE want support at both local and national level then Derby would be a good place to consider, they could in theory takeover the existing Bombardier works there which would save quite a bit on setting up a new factory as most of the infrastructure is already there rather then having to set up a brand new site when a existing one is good enough to use.

Given the number of units GNWR would need for their proposals, I think Bombardier's Derby site would be a bit on the large side

 

[northwichcat]

You are suggesting cutting one of the Manchester services (with Stoke having a replacement by extending the EBW)?

Yes. There is no need for 4(express)tph between Manchester and Stoke or for 3tph off peak between Manchester and London. The latter runs around half empty despite offering Virgin only local Off-Peak tickets undercutting Northern.

Given the number of units GNWR would need for their proposals, I think Bombardier's Derby site would be a bit on the large side

Depends if it's just Alliance though. Grand Central were proposing ordering Polaris' and in an ideal world they'll also be orders for XC, TPE and Hull Trains.

 

[anthony263]

You are suggesting cutting one of the Manchester services (with Stoke having a replacement by extending the EBW)?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Given the number of units GNWR would need for their proposals, I think Bombardier's Derby site would be a bit on the large side

Yes but they will also be bidding for other orders such as crossrail, cardiff Valley lines if they are wired and the merseyrail contract's.

I also suspect that a few new dmu's will need to be ordered to replace the pacers and it could be possible to build a bi-mode version which the ROSCO's may be more willing to buy.

Finally CSRE could also bid for other contracts in the eu as well

 

[IanXC]

If CSRE want support at both local and national level then Derby would be a good place to consider, they could in theory takeover the existing Bombardier works there which would save quite a bit on setting up a new factory as most of the infrastructure is already there rather then having to set up a brand new site when a existing one is good enough to use.

How up to date is the Derby plant though? I've read in a number of sources that its not had very much investment recently, so I suspect it would be more like the Rover plant at Longbridge. Most of it not a great deal of use, and actually building something from scratch might avoid costs associated with adapting existing infrastructure.

 

[Nym]

OK, first ask yourself what the UK's public debt is currently running at (when I last looked, it was £1.38 Trillion, that's 1,380,000,000,000).

Not to be critical but 1,380,000,000,000 is 1,380 trillion in economics....

£1.38 Tr is actually 1,380,000,000 (1,380bn)

In the imperial measurement system 1.80 Tr would be 1,380,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

 

[Masbroughlad]

Nothing mentioned about their GNER services. Are they hoping to start these at the same time?

 

[tbtc]

Yes but they will also be bidding for other orders such as crossrail, cardiff Valley lines if they are wired and the merseyrail contract's.

I also suspect that a few new dmu's will need to be ordered to replace the pacers and it could be possible to build a bi-mode version which the ROSCO's may be more willing to buy.

Finally CSRE could also bid for other contracts in the eu as well

If CSRE (or anyone else) gets an order for 100 units to replace Pacers (or whatever) then I could see the logic in setting up a big site in Derby (or elsewhere).

However, a handful of trains for GNWR, plus maybe a couple for GC... sounds more like the kind of orders you'd tag on to another order (in the way that HT tagged some 222s onto the MML order)

 

[GNERman]

would help if CSRE's website was fully functional...

 

[northwichcat]

would help if CSRE's website was fully functional...

You can get hold of the data sheets by googling the name of the train followed by CSRE.

Here's the Pacer replacement one I found that way: http://www.csre.co.uk/files/Download/2010_Pulsar_Data_Sheet_v2.pdf The illustration of the train says Sheffield on the front. Let's hope some brand new units are coming to the North to replace Pacers in the next few years.

 

[Kingfisher200262]

Not to be critical but 1,380,000,000,000 is 1,380 trillion in economics....

£1.38 Tr is actually 1,380,000,000 (1,380bn)

In the imperial measurement system 1.80 Tr would be 1,380,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

I must confess I did look a few times at this. However, I still think you're wrong, based on the following logic: -

If 1,000,000 is one million (any argument?), then 1,380,000,000 must be one thousand three hundred and eighty million, which equals 1.38 billion.

Therefore, if a trillion is a thousand billion (or is it a hundred billion?) then £1.38 Tr is either 1,380,000,000,000 or 138,000,000,000. Take your pick (I don't know which is right and I only added the zeros to illustrate what a large number it is, either way, it's 1.38 Tr!).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

would help if CSRE's website was fully functional...

Sorry, too busy dealing with customers' enquiries

 

[Eagle]

A trillion is 10^12 (one thousand billion, or one million million).

£1.38tn is £1 380 000 000 000.

There's no arguing; that's the way it is.

 

[Kingfisher200262]

If CSRE want support at both local and national level then Derby would be a good place to consider, they could in theory takeover the existing Bombardier works there which would save quite a bit on setting up a new factory as most of the infrastructure is already there rather then having to set up a brand new site when a existing one is good enough to use.

We have a number of key criteria for the final assembly site: -

• close proximity to a deep sea port (for obvious reasons);
• connection to the main line railway;
• access to a suitably skilled workforce;
• sustainability i.e. not too big to be kept steadily busy with either new build, or refurb / overhaul work.

Regrettably, Derby only satisfies only two of these criteria. In fact ironically for a country as small and narrow as the UK, Derby is about as far from the sea as it's possible to get.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

A trillion is 10^12 (one thousand billion, or one million million).

£1.38tn is £1 380 000 000 000.

There's no arguing; that's the way it is.

So, right the first time then... thanks for that.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes but they will also be bidding for other orders such as crossrail, cardiff Valley lines if they are wired and the merseyrail contract's.

I also suspect that a few new dmu's will need to be ordered to replace the pacers and it could be possible to build a bi-mode version which the ROSCO's may be more willing to buy.

Finally CSRE could also bid for other contracts in the eu as well

Not Crossrail as we failed to pre-qualify (not a big surprise).

One important aspect of being at a deep sea port is the ability to ship in from China semi-complete, add value in the UK and then ship out to the rest of Europe. This is made easier if the port of entry is also a free port, which is our aim. This means that the value of EXPORT from the UK far outweighs the value of import to the UK.

I doubt whether our competitors, whether German, French or Canadian, can make this claim.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I am sure i read somewhere that one proposed site was in south wales, and i think another was in the north west of england

No final decision has been made. South Wales (Cardiff or Newport), Merseyside, and Clydeside are still under consideration and the final decision will be made based on where the critical mass of orders come from.

For example, if we had Polaris for Alliance and Pulsar for Class 507/508 replacements, then it would be a no brainer for Merseyside. However, if we had Pacesetter for EGIP or Pulsar for Cardiff Valleys (South Wales), then the story might be different.

Naturally, once the decision is made and the site starts work, then the die is cast and we'll rely on rail moves like everybody else.

 

[GNERman]

Sorry, too busy dealing with customers' enquiries

Cheers, however, a functioning website is ever essential...

I like the Polaris and Pulsar though...

 

[sulli_os]

Just looked at the Pulsar - now hoping that 1) At least one of the companies bidding for the Northern/TPE franchise propose purchasing these, and 2) DafT selects that (or one of those) bid(s).

 

[Kingfisher200262]

Just looked at the Pulsar - now hoping that 1) At least one of the companies bidding for the Northern/TPE franchise propose purchasing these, and 2) DafT selects that (or one of those) bid(s).

Thanks. We've just uploaded the 2011 Pulsar data sheet, with new address and typical seating layout, HERE.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Here's the Pacer replacement one I found that way: http://www.csre.co.uk/files/Download/2010_Pulsar_Data_Sheet_v2.pdf The illustration of the train says Sheffield on the front. Let's hope some brand new units are coming to the North to replace Pacers in the next few years.

The length is shown as 19 metres in the document in the link. Is there any likelihood that a longer version could be produced or is the standard package offered for this particular unit carriage?

 

[northwichcat]

The length is shown as 19 metres in the document in the link. Is there any likelihood that a longer version could be produced or is the standard package offered for this particular unit carriage?

There's a bit more discussion on it in this thread, including another design they have with 23m carriages and corridor connectors:

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=50411

 

[LE Greys]

Looks like it might be a good design, provided they use the Pacemaker cab with the gangway connection. Presumably that's possible. The lack of a gangway is yet another Pacer feature that should not be perpetuated.