Lack of train orders in the next five years & what should be done about it

[bramling]

Yes. Unlike Europe we have not electrified enough. There are plenty of routes with little or no parts electrified so BiMode is a waste of money. Battery Diesel might be worth it just to reduce emissions in built up areas and enhance acceleration.

I can see the uncertainty around Nationalisation causing a pause just like the one Roger Ford reported on when Privatisation came along.

What you can be certain of is uncertainty.

Yes after the large gap in orders due to Privatisaton there came an unseemly boom in orders. We could have slowed that down a little which might have made the overloaded manufacturers more price competitive.

I remember reading of the 1950s rush to build DMUs. There then came a decade or so of very few DMUs being built which then meant in the 1990s there were a lot of DMUs needing replacement. We seem to be entering that phase again only perhaps it should be happening later - in the 2030s ?. But nstead the UK will put of ordering DMUs until it is too late to built fewer per year but for more years. The UK will never learn.

I agree. If the UK wanted to avoid pure diesel trains and have Bi-Modes instead then a lot more electrification should have happened over the last decade or so.

What all this seems to boil down to is that party politicians just aren’t particularly good at getting involved in how railways run, which can probably be said about a lot of other things they get involved in too.

It does seem like these shambles situations happen more often now though. How many threads have there been on here where people have predicted that something isn’t going to end well, and then it ends up happening, often even worse than envisaged.

 

[Peter Sarf]

What all this seems to boil down to is that party politicians just aren’t particularly good at getting involved in how railways run, which can probably be said about a lot of other things they get involved in too.

It does seem like these shambles situations happen more often now though. How many threads have there been on here where people have predicted that something isn’t going to end well, and then it ends up happening, often even worse than envisaged.

I agree. The thing is more and more it is pressure for short term results that rules. Possibly because social media means politicians need short snappy things to say and long winded justifications just fall over due to the shortening attention span of the average reader.

 

[norbitonflyer]

I remember reading of the 1950s rush to build DMUs. There then came a decade or so of very few DMUs being built

Two decades, and none at all, unless you count the HSTs.

The last 1st Generation DMUs, the Class 123s, were built in 1963. The first Class 141s appeared in 1984, and the prototype Sprinter the following year.

 

[317 forever]

Furthermore, as many prematurely displaced fleets have now been reassigned other duties, albeit sometimes for train lengthening, there is less life-expired stock around than usual.

Examples are 379s from Greater Anglia to Great Northern, 68s from TPE to Chiltern, 175s from TfW to GWR and 350/2s from LNWR to Northern.

 

[norbitonflyer]

A related problem is that TOCs have built new electric units to replace units that still had some life in them, but those older units can't be cascaded to replace the oldest, diesel, units. Thus we have twenty-year old 350s and 458s sitting idle whilst forty year old BR-era 150s and 158s soldier on.

 

[Peter Sarf]

A related problem is that TOCs have built new electric units to replace units that still had some life in them, but those older units can't be cascaded to replace the oldest, diesel, units. Thus we have twenty-year old 350s and 458s sitting idle whilst forty year old BR-era 150s and 158s soldier on.

Becoming (has already become) too late to be an excuse to electrify more routes. Another lost opportunity.
458s of course would require 3rd rail and we have to assume diesel seems to be preferable !.
The 350s might go to Northern.

But we will build more DMUs instead !.

 

[wickham]

Becoming (has already become) too late to be an excuse to electrify more routes. Another lost opportunity.
458s of course would require 3rd rail and we have to assume diesel seems to be preferable !.
The 350s might go to Northern.

But we will build more DMUs instead !.

I think I am correct in saying that 458s were built for dual voltage, they have a lot of the required bits but not the actual equipment for AC. I understand that when a driver keys in on a 458 he has to select AC or DC mode, or at least this was the case before they were refurbished and may still be so. They should therefore be quite easy to fit up as AC, but of course there is the cost and the fact that the equipment may well be out-dated by now.
Of course there are the un-loved 769s, but nobody seems interested in these - I wonder why !!

 

[Invincible]

I agree. The thing is more and more it is pressure for short term results that rules. Possibly because social media means politicians need short snappy things to say and long winded justifications just fall over due to the shortening attention span of the average reader.

UK Prime Minister visits Alstom's Litchurch Lane factory in Derby

UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham met around 100 apprentices and graduates in Alstom’s National Training Academy at Derby Litchurch Lane Works, providing the backdrop for changes to the education system

www.alstom.com

An Alstom press release says 5 days ago Andy Burnham was at Alstom’s National Training Academy at Derby Litchurch Lane Works "where he announced the launch of new technical education routes".

Alstrom has bid for, probably also pushing, to get a new train contract? The press release also says "A three-year research programme and a £35 million investment culminated in the development of Adessia for the UK"
from April 2024 https://www.thetimes.com/uk/transpo...alstom-train-factory-with-new-order-0tkmxdjk8
"Adessia is the new train type developed by Alstom to replace Aventra, the model used on the Elizabeth Line and other networks such as South West Railway and West Midlands Trains that Alstom has supplied.
It is the new class of train with which Alstom will attempt to land a lucrative £1 billion-plus contract for 600 cars for Southeastern, which could go out to tender as early as next month."
No sign yet of any order

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

The Government is not required to make any Capital Expenditure in the procurement of new trains, that is the responsibility of the Rolling Stock Owning COmpany who will finance the procurement and recover their investment, plus profit, through leasing the trains to the operator (which is in reality the government through DfTO and in turn GBR at some point in the future) for 30 or more years.

The Government is required to commit to an almost certain increased Operational Expenditure of the railway, through the Operator which will operate the new trains, because the new trains will be be more expensive to lease than the incumbent trains because the purchase price per carriage, even when the purchase price is indexed to account for the inflation over the period since the incumbent trains were purchased, is significantly higher.

An Alstom (Bombardier, as was) Electrostar back in 2002 cost about £1M per carriage, which is about £1.9M today when indexed.

I've heard a figure of about £3.25M a carriage for the Alstom Adessia offering for the current TPE and SE tenders being spoken of at the DfT.

And an increase in the Op Ex of the railway is the very last thing that the DfT want or need right now. Their full, #1, king of the hill, el primo focus is on reducing the operational deficit of the railway, and increasing the Op Ex of SE by somewhere in the region of £250k per day without a matching increase in income doesn't align with that. So you can bet your bottom dollar that there are all kinds of scenario's being modelled and costed by the DfT around leaving incumbent trains in place or cascading stock or leasing new . And it is this process which is holding up any procurement commitment and ultimately still making it far from certain whether new trains will be procured.

SE already require a hefty subsidy so adding an extra 250k/day is going to take some convincing the DfT to support. Thats not forgetting that DfT had to to bankroll an extra £50m/annum on the 701 lease all this against needing to find £500m savings each year. I would imagine though that Northerns order likely to be looked upon more favorably given Burnhams predilection for Northern cities.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I think I am correct in saying that 458s were built for dual voltage, they have a lot of the required bits but not the actual equipment for AC. I understand that when a driver keys in on a 458 he has to select AC or DC mode, or at least this was the case before they were refurbished and may still be so. They should therefore be quite easy to fit up as AC, but of course there is the cost and the fact that the equipment may well be out-dated by now.
Of course there are the un-loved 769s, but nobody seems interested in these - I wonder why !!

It seems that converting old-ish EMUs to Bi-Modes is not a path to success. Be so nice just to electrify complete routes - KISS as they say.

 

[brad465]

UK Prime Minister visits Alstom's Litchurch Lane factory in Derby

UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham met around 100 apprentices and graduates in Alstom’s National Training Academy at Derby Litchurch Lane Works, providing the backdrop for changes to the education system

www.alstom.com

5 days ago Andy Burnham was at Alstom’s National Training Academy at Derby Litchurch Lane Works "where he announced the launch of new technical education routes".

Alstrom has bid for, probably also pushing, to get a new train contract? The press release also says "A three-year research programme and a £35 million investment culminated in the development of Adessia for the UK"

They must have a contract almost signed to build something after the 345s, otherwise Burnham is going to have almighty backlash when it transpires he was at the factory announcing this education plan, only for this company to then have no work alongside it.

SE already require a hefty subsidy so adding an extra 250k/day is going to take some convincing the DfT to support. Thats not forgetting that DfT had to to bankroll an extra £50m/annum on the 701 lease all this against needing to find £500m savings each year. I would imagine though that Northerns order likely to be looked upon more favorably given Burnhams predilection for Northern cities.

Is SE's subsidy still that bad? The upcoming restoration of pre-covid frequencies on the Dartford lines, along with 2tph all day, all week on the Sheerness branch and Tunbridge Wells' extras all day Mon-Sat would not have been approved if the subsidy was still unsustainably large.

 

[iamraymond]

They must have a contract almost signed to build something after the 345s, otherwise Burnham is going to have almighty backlash when it transpires he was at the factory announcing this education plan, only for this company to then have no work alongside it.

Is SE's subsidy still that bad? The upcoming restoration of pre-covid frequencies on the Dartford lines, along with 2tph all day, all week on the Sheerness branch and Tunbridge Wells' extras all day Mon-Sat would not have been approved if the subsidy was still unsustainably large.

Subsidy was £415m for FY 24/25

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I agree. If the UK wanted to avoid pure diesel trains and have Bi-Modes instead then a lot more electrification should have happened over the last decade or so.

You can't blame the government for the shambles Network Rail made of the CP5 electrification programme, that caused wiring plans to be truncated, paused or abandoned in 2015.
There's a long list of NR mega-projects that went massively late/overspent, causing money intended for electrification to evaporate.

 

[millemille]

SE already require a hefty subsidy so adding an extra 250k/day is going to take some convincing the DfT to support. Thats not forgetting that DfT had to to bankroll an extra £50m/annum on the 701 lease all this against needing to find £500m savings each year. I would imagine though that Northerns order likely to be looked upon more favorably given Burnhams predilection for Northern cities.

The DfT needs to look closely at the viability and cost of other options. "Do nothing" may save the cost of the increased lease charges of new trains, but what's the feasibility and cost - both direct and consequential - of trying to limp the incumbent trains along, as an example?

The problem, as far as I'm aware, with the NTL new trains procurement is that all the train builders have either declined to bid (principally because of the diesel requirement) or have told NTL that they simply cannot have the technical/functional specification NTL want for anything approaching the indicated budget. And CAF, as the potential favorite due to their established relationship with NTL, are on the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights blacklist of companies conducting business in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel. Which poses a challenge for public money spending.

 

[3RDGEN]

They must have a contract almost signed to build something after the 345s, otherwise Burnham is going to have almighty backlash when it transpires he was at the factory announcing this education plan, only for this company to then have no work alongside it.

Derby already has the XC 22x and ScotRail 222 refurb contracts alongside the HS2 rolling stock contract with Hitachi so the site isn't closing. Alstom just need to actually win a new build contract from the numerous ones on offer, it's not the UK taxpayers job to keep Derby open.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Aug 2026 ==

The problem, as far as I'm aware, with the NTL new trains procurement is that all the train builders have either declined to bid (principally because of the diesel requirement) or have told NTL that they simply cannot have the technical/functional specification NTL want for anything approaching the indicated budget.

Lets hope that moves the financial case back to electrification and pure EMU's as the way forward instead of Hybrids / BEMU options as currently planned.

 

[172007]

A related problem is that TOCs have built new electric units to replace units that still had some life in them, but those older units can't be cascaded to replace the oldest, diesel, units. Thus we have twenty-year old 350s and 458s sitting idle whilst forty year old BR-era 150s and 158s soldier on.

Slightly puzzled.

At the same time the contract to build 730's was signed which replaced class 350/2's the contracts were signed for Class 195, 196 and class 197's to replace a large amount of DMU's.

Getting rid of Class 350's was due to the lesse being an expensive pay per mile one together with intetest rates extremely low at the time. This has resulted in a spot of luck where Northern rather than contiuning on with the old class 323's can replace them with 350's. The class 323's would have been bottom of the pile whilst the Northern DMU tender is signed and delivered plus replacementd for 165/166's

 

[brad465]

Subsidy was £415m for FY 24/25

Thanks for this; this value is worse than the £250k a day quoted above, more like over a million a day. Southeastern must have been able to prove the timetable uplift in December would bring in more passenger revenue than increase in running costs.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I am sure I read somewhere that the government is going to have the civil service produce a rolling stock strategy document.

 

[Freightmaster]

I am sure I read somewhere that the government is going to have the civil service produce a rolling stock strategy document.

...what could possibly go wrong?!

 

[millemille]

Thanks for this; this value is worse than the £250k a day quoted above, more like over a million a day. Southeastern must have been able to prove the timetable uplift in December would bring in more passenger revenue than increase in running costs.

Possibly a misunderstanding here. The £250k per day I alluded to is the potential INCREASE in SE's op ex if new trains were to be leased, it's not the total op ex. Whatever subsidy SE are currently receiving to make up for the deficit in income vs. op ex would potentially increase by c. £91M pa.

 

[coppercapped]

You can't blame the government for the shambles Network Rail made of the CP5 electrification programme, that caused wiring plans to be truncated, paused or abandoned in 2015.
There's a long list of NR mega-projects that went massively late/overspent, causing money intended for electrification to evaporate.

Ah, but one can blame the government - or at least give it equal responsibility. An example is the Great Western route modernisation and electrification as described in the National Audit Office's November 2016 report Modernising the Great Western railway[1]. A couple of quotes:

The Department’s aims changed several times between 2007 and 2014. In 2007, the Department required Network Rail to deliver the infrastructure improvements needed for the new trains that it had decided to commission for the Great Western route.
In 2009 the Department announced that the route would be electrified, significantly increasing the scope of Network Rail’s work. Network Rail did some preparatory work, but the Department changed the extent of electrification on the route several times between 2009 and 2012:...

and

Before 2014, Network Rail was a private company, able to borrow from the financial markets to cover increases in the costs of its work. In 2014, Network Rail was reclassified as a public sector body and since then it has only been able to borrow from government, with a loan cap of £30.3 billion.

So, the Treasury refused to cover the cost increases caused by the DfT's indecision in the extent and scheduling of the electrification and top speed of the trains using it. Combined with, for example, Network Rail ordering a factory train to install electrification equipment before the overhead system design had been completed the result was inevitable.

[1] Well worth a read. And, no, I don't have a URL, I downloaded my copy years ago!

 

[vuzzeho]

Is anyone else worried by the fact that there currently seem to be very few orders for new rolling stock? In the five years from 2022 to 2026 (inclusive), we've had the following come into service:
99, 196, 197, 230, 231, 398, 701, 730, 756, 777, 805, 807 and 810.

In the five years from 2027 to 2031, we'll have (hopefully!) the first few vehicles of the Northern & Scotrail order, the LNER 897s and the HS2 order (even though it won't come into service for a long time!). There's also the ten extra 345s, but overall it seems like there will not be much work for UK rolling stock builders in the next few years, particularly in the first couple of years of that period. Am I missing some or are we likely to see factories temporarily/permanently shut down?

I feel like we're in the bust bit of the boom and bust cycle. That said, within the next few years we can expect the Northern and ScotRail orders, the 897s, the HS2 895s, the 345s, the SE Networker replacements, the new TPE trains, whatever ends up happening with Project Churchward for GWR, Chiltern, and SWR, the new Piccadilly and Bakerloo line stock (TfL seems convinced it's getting them for the Bakerloo too, so sure, whatever), new GC IETs, more IETs for Lumo and Hull Trains, the new EWR trains, some more new trains for TfW, and probably some trams. That's a pretty good number of new trains, and doesn't include speculative orders, like XC potentially getting new trains or EMR replacing their Turbostars. It also doesn't include other things these factories build, like people movers and stuff like that.

The government should really sort out infrastructure construction so these new trains can be electric, and we can cascade some others, but depending on how these tenders/orders go, we may not have to worry about our factories just yet.

 

[iamraymond]

I feel like we're in the bust bit of the boom and bust cycle. That said, within the next few years we can expect the Northern and ScotRail orders, the 897s, the HS2 895s, the 345s, the SE Networker replacements, the new TPE trains, whatever ends up happening with Project Churchward for GWR, Chiltern, and SWR, the new Piccadilly and Bakerloo line stock (TfL seems convinced it's getting them for the Bakerloo too, so sure, whatever), new GC IETs, more IETs for Lumo and Hull Trains, the new EWR trains, some more new trains for TfW, and probably some trams. That's a pretty good number of new trains, and doesn't include speculative orders, like XC potentially getting new trains or EMR replacing their Turbostars. It also doesn't include other things these factories build, like people movers and stuff like that.

The government should really sort out infrastructure construction so these new trains can be electric, and we can cascade some others, but depending on how these tenders/orders go, we may not have to worry about our factories just yet.

Unfortunately common sense went out the window after the Reeves budget. Until we have a Chancellor that is capable of not manipulating economic performance and a government that seeks nothing but short-termism, we will have to wait

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I am sure I read somewhere that the government is going to have the civil service produce a rolling stock strategy document.

One of the deliverables from the change to GBR is for NR/DfTO to produce a rolling stock strategy allegedly in Summer 26!! Exactly why NR is involved is beyond me.



https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...british-railways-policy-publication-timetable

 

[iamraymond]

One of the deliverables from the change to GBR is for NR/DfTO to produce a rolling stock strategy allegedly in Summer 26!! Exactly why NR is involved is beyond me.

View attachment 208832

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...british-railways-policy-publication-timetable

Labour government....

 

[Rab Smith]

Makes sense to hold off orders for BEMU's as the technology in even the space of a couple of years will be vastly superior to what it is now. The new sodium battery technology looks like it could be a major game changer for the battery supply chain.

 

[MrC]

Exactly why NR is involved is beyond me.

Because they're the infrastructure part of the statement "Rolling stock and infrastructure strategy"?

They'll need to get involved in anything to do with items like present and future electrical supply, signalling (think future ERTMS plans and implementations), infrastructure maintenance/lifespan, station builds/enhancements, siding/berthing provision, maintenance depots, SDO balises, GSM-R replacement, gauge clearance, and any number of infrastructure items which future rolling stock will need to interface with.

Those with longer memories might even remember the issues caused by class 444/450 rigid bogies causing excessive track wear which I suspect could've been avoided or mitigated if NR had been involved with at an earlier stage rather than reacting to it once the trains were damaging the track.

I don't see how NR can not be in the room on any future rolling stock planning.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Makes sense to hold off orders for BEMU's as the technology in even the space of a couple of years will be vastly superior to what it is now. The new sodium battery technology looks like it could be a major game changer for the battery supply chain.

Sodium is very cost competitive but it comes with a much lower energy and volumetric density which are more critical attributes for BEMUs. Lithium Titanate still offers the best solution for traction but we are way off being able to pack enough power in space available to get very far without recharging. This maybe challenging issue that stalling orders from Northern and Scotrail.

 

[Rab Smith]

Sodium is very cost competitive but it comes with a much lower energy and volumetric density which are more critical attributes for BEMUs. Lithium Titanate still offers the best solution for traction but we are way off being able to pack enough power in space available to get very far without recharging. This maybe challenging issue that stalling orders from Northern and Scotrail.

The point stands though, even to hold off for 3-4 years will see a huge leap in battery technology; this obviously has its downside, with keeping the construction lines busy and people in employment.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Because they're the infrastructure part of the statement "Rolling stock and infrastructure strategy"? They'll need to get involved in anything to do with items like present and future electrical supply, signalling (think future ERTMS plans and implementations), infrastructure maintenance/lifespan, station builds/enhancements, siding/berthing provision, maintenance depots, SDO balises, GSM-R replacement, gauge clearance, and any number of infrastructure items which future rolling stock will need to interface with. Those with longer memories might even remember the issues caused by class 444/450 rigid bogies causing excessive track wear which I suspect could've been avoided or mitigated if NR had been involved with at an earlier stage rather than reacting to it once the trains were damaging the track. I don't see how NR can not be in the room on any future rolling stock planning.

Very very good point that I completely overlooked post amended!

Those trains were also specced without any consideration to the traction systems capability which led to a big bill and trains with high installed power thats never been fully exploited.