One vehicle to rule them all?

[Dan G]

Looking at the five or so tenders/prospective tenders amounting to ~2,000 vehicles, largely to replace Sprinters, Networkers, and Networker Turbos, isn't there a case for procuring a single common vehicle?

A lightweight aluminium car, electric final drive, electric/battery-electric/diesel-electric (changeable) underbody rafts, 20- and 23- meter variants, level boarding, heck let's go wild and say doors at thirds and end-door variants.

Award the job to a single manufacturer to build 200-300 cars a year, at a significant discount for a decade-plus contract. When that job is done it'll be time to replace the Turbo and Electrostars. When that job is done it'll be time to replace the Aventras and Desiros. When that job is done...

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree but for one thing. End doors are not possible with a low floor layout (as you can't go low floor over the bogies), so it would need to be a choice between two pairs of wide double doors per vehicle bodyside (local/regional) and one pair (long distance), as per the FLIRT UK designs in circulation already.

 

[coppercapped]

Looking at the five or so tenders/prospective tenders amounting to ~2,000 vehicles, largely to replace Sprinters, Networkers, and Networker Turbos, isn't there a case for procuring a single common vehicle?

A lightweight aluminium car, electric final drive, electric/battery-electric/diesel-electric (changeable) underbody rafts, 20- and 23- meter variants, level boarding, heck let's go wild and say doors at thirds and end-door variants.

Award the job to a single manufacturer to build 200-300 cars a year, at a significant discount for a decade-plus contract. When that job is done it'll be time to replace the Turbo and Electrostars. When that job is done it'll be time to replace the Aventras and Desiros. When that job is done...

If there is only one manufacturer, how do you know if you’ve achieved a ‘significant discount’?

 

[Bletchleyite]

If there is only one manufacturer, how do you know if you’ve achieved a ‘significant discount’?

By putting the contract out to tender as you would for smaller orders. Larger orders typically bring better tender prices.

 

[brad465]

Looking at the five or so tenders/prospective tenders amounting to ~2,000 vehicles, largely to replace Sprinters, Networkers, and Networker Turbos, isn't there a case for procuring a single common vehicle?

A lightweight aluminium car, electric final drive, electric/battery-electric/diesel-electric (changeable) underbody rafts, 20- and 23- meter variants, level boarding, heck let's go wild and say doors at thirds and end-door variants.

Award the job to a single manufacturer to build 200-300 cars a year, at a significant discount for a decade-plus contract. When that job is done it'll be time to replace the Turbo and Electrostars. When that job is done it'll be time to replace the Aventras and Desiros. When that job is done...

According to Philip Haigh last year, the DfT have been discussing this with GWR, SWR and Chiltern:

https://x.com/philatrail/status/1945423791624016286

DfT is talking with GWR, SWR and Chiltern about a combined order for trains to replace their ageing diesel fleets rather than having each pursue its own.

Southeastern's Networker replacement is probably too different in spec to combine with the above orders, however having them go through with a separate order is no bad thing if it involves a different manufacturer to the others, as the orders can be done simultaneously. Southeastern's order is also quite large in its own right.

 

[Tetragon213]

I agree but for one thing. End doors are not possible with a low floor layout (as you can't go low floor over the bogies), so it would need to be a choice between two pairs of wide double doors per vehicle bodyside (local/regional) and one pair (long distance), as per the FLIRT UK designs in circulation already.

I'll be biased as I do like them a lot, but I really do think we should be buying more FLIRT style trains such as Class 755s
Very comfortable, surprisingly quiet, and of course the options for batteries and OLE alongside the diesel powerplant makes them a very attractive prospect. I also think there could be an opportunity for making them DC-compatible for replacing some Southern/Southeastern units, helped by Stadler already having experience with the Merseyrail 777s.

I genuinely do think 231s or 755/756s would be a very worthy replacement for the venerable 159s, and the 100mph top speed plus the better acceleration could make them viable replacements for Turbostars as well imo.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'll be biased as I do like them a lot, but I really do think we should be buying more FLIRT style trains such as Class 755s
Very comfortable, surprisingly quiet, and of course the options for batteries and OLE alongside the diesel powerplant makes them a very attractive prospect. I also think there could be an opportunity for making them DC-compatible for replacing some Southern/Southeastern units, helped by Stadler already having experience with the Merseyrail 777s.

I genuinely do think 231s or 755/756s would be a very worthy replacement for the venerable 159s, and the 100mph top speed plus the better acceleration could make them viable replacements for Turbostars as well imo.

I personally think they're a bit rubbish compared to their European counterparts (of which I'm a huge fan) and that they haven't scaled down well at all* - I find them cramped and clumsily laid out. I would love to see what Siemens and Alstom could offer, I think it could potentially be a lot better. Something like a 3 car 24m Aventra with a low floor dip between the bogies of the centre vehicle could to me be a very good compromise indeed (the diesel version being able to have a larger engine under each end vehicle, say 750hp, but none under the middle one). It's going to be hard to do that meaningfully in a 20m unit, though - I think 20m unit land might be better off doing the work to be able to get longer distance services to 24m units (as is already the case on SWR), while for low speed innersuburbans a unit that is low floor throughout with smaller wheels for a lower top speed like the near-perfect London Underground S-stock would be worth considering.

The other downside is that the FLIRT design puts a lot of stuff above the floor that doesn't need to go there in a hybrid unit with only some vehicles low floor, which wastes platform length. It's like that because it's designed for European style *really* low platforms, but if you just want to get down from 1100mm to 960mm you don't need those compromises, you can still put stuff underneath - you're only making the floor about 15cm lower which is hardly anything.

That might I suppose get you two or even three separate tenders.

* Most notably the Class 777 is in my view absolute junk from start to finish, a hugely expensive load of scrap, and I loved the idea until I set foot on one, but while the Anglian and Welsh units are doubtless an upgrade on rotting old 15x I just think they are not particularly good designs of new unit, with the multiple levels of floor inside with awkward ramps, odd window sizes, "escape windows" and cramped seating (with limited scope to alter the layout) really not doing them any favours. Yes, on Greater Anglia the Class 720 is worse, but to be honest that would be worse than an open flat wagon pulled by a diesel shunter - and the actual unit isn't bad, just the seating - the 730 is pretty OK.

 

[coppercapped]

By putting the contract out to tender as you would for smaller orders. Larger orders typically bring better tender prices.

And after you’ve placed your multi-year order for how long will the companies who weren’t successful keep their doors open? When the time comes, a decade later, to get the next set of competitive quotes to whom do you turn?

 

[Bletchleyite]

And after you’ve placed your multi-year order for how long will the companies who weren’t successful keep their doors open? When the time comes, a decade later, to get the next set of competitive quotes to whom do you turn?

Fair point, though that's only a concern if we care about UK construction. The factories in mainland Europe and indeed China are not going to close for want of UK orders. Derby by contrast might, and CAF and Hitachi might withdraw.

In reality given that you need multiple significantly different types of vehicle there could be at least two tenders. Unless you want them to be a poor compromise of course by trying to use the same bodyshell for everything from a Southeastern local to a WCML IC service, but that would be a very poor compromise, just as most UK FLIRTs seem to be. To me Southeastern innersuburbans need something like the S-stock which would be quite different from a unit suitable for doing the Barrow and Windermeres.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Wasn't there a suggestion a few months ago that some of these big orders would be split between manufactures to avoid issues with any one product resulting in entire fleets being grounded?

Perhaps a good compromise would be to develop a standard specification and have the manufacturers tender for large batches of them? After all, were not some of the BR standard designs - particularly the Mk 1 carriages - built by multiple manufacturers?

There would need to be some for of clause in this strategy to ensure true adhesion to the design, though, otherwise we might risk ending up with fleets that are Schrodinger's Trains... i.e. the same, but not the same, like the case of the 465/0s vs the 465/2s for example...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Perhaps a good compromise would be to develop a standard specification and have the manufacturers tender for large batches of them? After all, were not some of the BR standard designs - particularly the Mk 1 carriages - built by multiple manufacturers?

The Networker fleet is a modern(ish) example of this - split between two manufacturers but to the same spec, resulting in the same basic product but some visible differences.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

The Networker fleet is a modern(ish) example of this - split between two manufacturers but to the same spec, resulting in the same basic product but some visible differences.

I was thinking of the equipment differences actually - and trying to avoid that from happening again.

 

[Zomboid]

Equipment differences aren't a huge issue so long as you've got decent sized fleets. What I would advocate for is an interoperability standard, so that Unit A can couple to Unit B and run in service. Fundamentally that means defining coupler positions, end corridor characteristics where applicable and data exchange protocols such that the control systems can interact properly.

It's not a new concept or even something that used to be possible but has now been lost to the mists of time - the 15x and 170s can all work together...

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Equipment differences aren't a huge issue so long as you've got decent sized fleets. What I would advocate for is an interoperability standard, so that Unit A can couple to Unit B and run in service. Fundamentally that means defining coupler positions, end corridor characteristics where applicable and data exchange protocols such that the control systems can interact properly.

It's not a new concept or even something that used to be possible but has now been lost to the mists of time - the 15x and 170s can all work together...

I absolutely agree, everything should be able to not just rescue but actually work with everything else - though we do need to be careful about how we handle improvements to couplers as time passes... that means finding a way of future proofing the things so that they can be quickly upgraded without needing wholesale replacement as systems develop and improve.

 

[JonathanH]

If there is only one manufacturer, how do you know if you’ve achieved a ‘significant discount’?

Why does there only need to be one manufacturer? Different manufacturers could be appointed to build units to a common specification, as happened with the Networker.

I note however that going with only one manufacturer does run the risk of choosing the 'dud' model. We have done this with Hitachi for long-distance fleet replacement and come up with a train which is much criticised.

 

[Bletchleyite]

We have done this with Hitachi for long-distance fleet replacement and come up with a train which is much criticised.

By some. Personally aside from the seats in some of them I quite like them - they do actually have plenty going for them as well.

Enthusiasts don't like them primarily because they're samey in my view. But so would this unit be.

 

[Tetragon213]

By some. Personally aside from the seats in some of them I quite like them - they do actually have plenty going for them as well.

Enthusiasts don't like them primarily because they're samey in my view. But so would this unit be.

The big killer is the horrendous interior quality, but mechanically (beyond the inexcusable bogie cracking) they are actually quite good.

If the seats were more comfortable than a police interview room chair, and the lightning was made dimmer and warmer so it didn't feel like PC Plod was shining a lamp in your face while asking where you were last night, I think there would be far fewer complaints.

They're maligned for replacing HSTs (understandable, as they are just so uncomfortable compared to the Mk3s and only about 5 minutes faster on a London-Exeter run), but fundamentally the skeleton underneath is mostly alright; they just need to be given better interiors and fittings.

I still prefer the Stadler FLIRTs, however.

 

[Zomboid]

By some. Personally aside from the seats in some of them I quite like them - they do actually have plenty going for them as well.

Enthusiasts don't like them primarily because they're samey in my view. But so would this unit be.

I see chat about the ride, but that hasn't yet bothered me. The seats (in standard) do leave quite a bit to be desired, but that's my only criticism of them, as a passenger. (It's not an insignificant complaint, but it's also not fundamental to the train itself)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Jun 2026 ==

maligned for replacing HST

Which were themselves maligned for replacing deltics, which were maligned for replacing A4s...

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I see chat about the ride, but that hasn't yet bothered me. The seats (in standard) do leave quite a bit to be desired, but that's my only criticism of them, as a passenger. (It's not an insignificant complaint, but it's also not fundamental to the train itself)

I agree; the seats themselves are not very comfortable - but the seating layout and all that is absolutely spot on.

That's one of the things that needs to be done with any new standard carriage design - it must be comfortable and the seating layout needs to be good as well.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If the seats were more comfortable than a police interview room chair, and the lightning was made dimmer and warmer so it didn't feel like PC Plod was shining a lamp in your face while asking where you were last night, I think there would be far fewer complaints.

Have you tried an Avanti unit or an 810? Both of these resolve those issues (though in different ways). I personally slightly prefer the Avanti units because the 810 crams seats in a bit tightly, but the 810 has a higher quality overall feel.

I still prefer the Stadler FLIRTs, however.

I very much don't. Which is surprising given how enthusiastic I am about Euro FLIRTs (particularly the PKP IC high floor version), but the UK ones are just a bit much of a compromise just to get the floor 15cm lower, a more UK dedicated design that isn't primarily set up around very low floor would likely be better in my book.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Jun 2026 ==

I agree; the seats themselves are not very comfortable - but the seating layout and all that is absolutely spot on.

It's not perfect as there are some blank wall seats, but if you get a window the view is good, the square bodyshell gives plenty of shoulder room and the luggage racks are huge. They certainly have all the important basics ticked in the Avanti form at least. I certainly choose them over a Pendolino if a choice is on offer.

 

[Sorcerer]

Enthusiasts don't like them primarily because they're samey in my view. But so would this unit be.

Many enthusiasts have a bias towards older stock. The 80x family being samey or allowing for little variety on the railway isn't a criticism they would usually apply to the HST, nor would it apply to the Networkers.

On subject of the thread I think having a streamlined fleet of each train type would be preferable. My usual example, SBB, has some variety in it's fleet but generally sticks with a specific kind of Stadler unit for different roles. For the UK we could easily have Desiros or Aventras as standard for commuter routes and Hitachi fleets for InterCity. Even the London Underground is trending towards this with the new Piccadilly Line stock being a contender for new Bakerloo Line trains and the S stock practically becoming the subsurface standard.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

It's not perfect as there are some blank wall seats, but if you get a window the view is good, the square bodyshell gives plenty of shoulder room and the luggage racks are huge. They certainly have all the important basics ticked in the Avanti form at least. I certainly choose them over a Pendolino if a choice is on offer.

Those blank wall seats are right at the ends aren't they? Ideal place for a luggage stack for the bags that won't fit in the overhead racks?

 

[Russel]

Those blank wall seats are right at the ends aren't they? Ideal place for a luggage stack for the bags that won't fit in the overhead racks?

They are also ideal if you just want to sit and watch a film on a tablet, or work on a laptop during the journey without the glare from the sun.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Those blank wall seats are right at the ends aren't they? Ideal place for a luggage stack for the bags that won't fit in the overhead racks?

Yes. Notably because the doors slide the other way the 810s don't have seats like those.

They are also ideal if you just want to sit and watch a film on a tablet, or work on a laptop during the journey without the glare from the sun.

I suppose they stop arguments over blinds.

There are other blank wall seats though. Roughly every other row has very little window and every other almost a full one.

 

[Russel]

There are other blank wall seats though. Roughly every other row has very little window and every other almost a full one.

I don't get many opportunities to use any of the IET fleets, but I did York - Scarborough on one of their 802s last week and noticed this, combined with almost every seat having a collapsed base, didn't make for a great journey.

 

[coppercapped]

Why does there only need to be one manufacturer? Different manufacturers could be appointed to build units to a common specification, as happened with the Networker.

Because the OP in post #1 stated:

Award the job to a single manufacturer...

so I based my comments around this premise.

I note however that going with only one manufacturer does run the risk of choosing the 'dud' model. We have done this with Hitachi for long-distance fleet replacement and come up with a train which is much criticised.

That the IET is a 'dud' (in some eyes!) is largely due to the procurement model adopted by the DfT and the manufacturer going along with thinking that 'the customer is always right'. But I suppose that if the customer is giving you a £4.1 billion Net Present Value (in 2010 pounds) bung you might also keep quiet.

A conclusion which can be drawn from this sorry chapter is that the DfT and its civil servants should not be let within a hundred miles of any train procurement. One relief - the emerging structure of the railways with ensure that this can't happen again.

PS: If anyone thinks that this will be the way things will work in the future, well — I have a bridge you might be interested in purchasing.

 

[The Ham]

PS: If anyone thinks that this will be the way things will work in the future, well — I have a bridge you might be interested in purchasing.

The purchaser (Robert P. McCulloch) of London Bridge knew what they were getting and because they were a developer wanting to sell property in Lake Havasu City, Arizona.

The press that implied that he wasn't very good at doing a deal as it was thought that he thought he was getting Tower Bridge worked in his favour - either at people thought that they could also get one over on him or because people would go just to see what the fuss was about and some of those would end up buying property there, basically be ended up with a lot of free publicity which wasn't detrimental to the product he was selling and so said boomed.

The fact that people still reference the "mistake" to this day implies just how ingrained in popular culture.

QI covered it (embedded video is a QI episode covering the above):

On the subject of a single vehicle, there's probably enough for 4 types (20m 1/3:2/3 doors 110mph, 23m end doors 110mph, 25m end doors 140mph, 25m end doors 225mph).

You'd want them to be able to work together, however there'd be no issue with a pointy end train coupled to a train with a door to the next unit as you'd just not open open it.

I'd be tempted to only have, 2, 4, 10 and 12 coach options.

 

[Tetragon213]

On the subject of a single vehicle, there's probably enough for 4 types (20m 1/3:2/3 doors 110mph, 23m end doors 110mph, 25m end doors 140mph, 25m end doors 225mph).

Complete crayon fantasy here, but I wonder if you could build a unit with a streamlined nose while still maintaining a front end gangway? Perhaps raise the driver's cab above the lower deck a la a Boeing 747 style "hump"?

 

[Bletchleyite]

On the subject of a single vehicle, there's probably enough for 4 types (20m 1/3:2/3 doors 110mph, 23m end doors 110mph, 25m end doors 140mph, 25m end doors 225mph).

Again, end doors are dead. It is not possible to do a low floor vehicle with end doors, unless you just do partial low floor on one vehicle and have end doors on the others, but the trend is I suspect towards low floor on all vehicles.

The choice will be, as it is on FLIRTs, between one or two pairs of double doors at roughly 1/3 positions. (The middle can leave a very long stepping distance, which is why the middle door on Mk1 and Mk2 stock that had it was closed off at mid life refurb). You can have middle doors - Merseyrail does for instance - but they wouldn't be great on curved platforms. I seem to recall that on the Liz on some platforms the middle doors are out of use for example?

With a 960mm floor the only units that could be low floor throughout are also the ones where you wouldn't want end doors, i.e. low speed local units for stuff like Merseyrail or the S stock.

If you leave the corridor connections open this can give the feeling of end doors, to be fair.

 

[JamesT]

Complete crayon fantasy here, but I wonder if you could build a unit with a streamlined nose while still maintaining a front end gangway? Perhaps raise the driver's cab above the lower deck a la a Boeing 747 style "hump"?

I don't think you can do that in UK loading gauge. There are a few examples of pointy gangway trains with the cab above; UAC TurboTrain, Dutch ICM, JR E351. But they're all getting on for being double-deck in height which isn't going to fit.