Bombardier £188m Order from Southern

[Southern]

Wonder how likely it is that these units will have a 378 style interior.

 

[DesiroDom]

377/6 I've read somwhere on here. 377 works in a 379 body?

Class 379's are based on the same design as the Southern 377's which were introduced before the 379's

 

[Nym]

So long as interior fitting brackets are in place on the 379 bodyshels for the basic equipment from the 377s, or they use the fittings from the 379 series, and drive / traction / control equipment from the 377s, I can't see any issues with slightly different interiors, so long as they talk t'eachother!

 

[Chris125]

Quoting myself here. I've just remembered Network Rail is upgrading a path across country to international gauge. This presumably means Syston Junction and Stenson Junction, which is within spitting distance of Derby.

Are they? I've never seen it mentioned before. Plenty of gauge enhancements are being talked about, but only for container traffic.

Chris

 

[tbtc]

Ideally we'd ensure that we built (say) 5% new trains each year, to cope for increased demand and withdrawal of older stock... nothing dramatic/ costly, no thousand day gaps, just a constant supply line of new stock. Wishful thinking!

 

[ushawk]

Wonder how likely it is that these units will have a 378 style interior.

Depends if Southern plan to eventually move them to other routes, i think they will have the same interior as the current 377s so they are all near enough the same (basically all featuring ironing board seats).

 

[Peter Mugridge]

i admit to taking my finger off the button but whats happened with the S stock? I know deliveries are currently caped.

Basically they keep failing!

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Quoting myself here. I've just remembered Network Rail is upgrading a path across country to international gauge. This presumably means Syston Junction and Stenson Junction, which is within spitting distance of Derby.

Only for containers (mostly height).
You still wouldn't be able to get continental gauge vehicles through the stations en route (too wide).
UK platform height is the main problem.

 

[Wyvern]

Oh rfight.

 

[Nym]

Well, when HS2 comes to fruition, it could go past Litchurch Ln and have a clear route to the EU then...

 

[Uzair]

Around when will we find out what class the new units for Southern are?

Regarding the merge of FCC and Southern, I really do hope it is Govia who takes up the franchise. I despise First.

To the guy who said that 171's and 185's aren't compatible with each other because they do not have the same couplers - they do. 171's and 185's have Dellner couplers. Southern modified the ones with BSI couplers to have Dellner in order to be coupled to the Electrostars. They can be coupled to each other mechanically/physically as Nym says, however as I forgot to mention, they cannot work in service together.

 

[Nym]

Coupled to... yes

Work with... NO!

They can only attach mechanically!

 

[Uzair]

Coupled to... yes

Work with... NO!

They can only attach mechanically!

That's what I meant!

 

[Class377/5]

Around when will we find out what class the new units for Southern are?

Regarding the merge of FCC and Southern, I really do hope it is Govia who takes up the franchise. I despise First.

To the guy who said that 171's and 185's aren't compatible with each other because they do not have the same couplers - they do. 171's and 185's have Dellner couplers. Southern modified the ones with BSI couplers to have Dellner in order to be coupled to the Electrostars.

As stated before, they're 377/6

http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/general/2011/12/28-boost-for-derby-as-bombardier.html

Having the same couplers does not make trains compatable. These days it's about a lot more. The 377 and 377/5 fleets could couple mechinally but couldn't work together electronically until a few weeks ago is the best example of this. In the worse case they could dead haul units but if you let them talk electronically they'd shut the trains down. That just one example of cross class issues, cross builder and between different builders means its a lot more complex then adding the trains together.

 

[WatcherZero]

Yes its been said about three times already, they are to be named 377/6 and will use 379 bodyshells with 377 equipment. Southern wanted pure 377's but Bombardier said they wouldnt manufacture them anymore so its a kind of compromise.

 

[Schnellzug]

But Operation Princess ruined VXC financially, they had to give up and get bailed out onto a management contract, so what money would a truly private XC have had to invest in more coaches, or to pay for anything in the first place?

A truly private VXC would have reaped the results of their errors and gone bust, and someone else have taken over what was viable, same as with anything else. That would, i suppose, have meant that some of the less profitable parts would have had to be tendered to ensure that services continued, but it might have meant that the new operator might have taken note of the mistakes virgin made and provided rolling stock that was better suited.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The rail industry is a global one, and Derby has been in multi-national ownership for more than 20 years.
Where are the orders for export to fill the gap left by domestic work?
Bombardier makes trains and aircraft parts all over the world (including Belfast).
An integrated business would be seeking to load its factories efficiently dependent on the flow of orders worldwide.
It may need to cut capacity, but that's its decision if the orders are inufficient.
How is it that Derby is still stuck in the last century waiting for limited UK orders?
Is it a failure of the local management or of corporate vision over the ABB/Adranz/Bombardier years?
Didn't they build trams for Strasbourg, and Gautrain for South Africa?
It is not entirely the UK government's fault that Derby is in the position it is.

Just my 5p.

And that's a very good point as well. Siemens' factories in Germany & Austria don't just bid for German and Austrian business (though there's plenty of it); is Derby restricted by Bombardier management to bidding for UK business, or is it that they only consider themselves capable of supplying for the Uk market? And why is that, if they do?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

My father called this at privatisation (he worked for the railways 68/9-01) and it would appear he is finally been proved correct, the same thing that happened to the other old BREL works is finally happening at derby.

Especially for the loading guage reasons, the only sustainable solution is the DfT bring rolling stock construction "in house" as it is the one that effectively orders all the stock these days.

But that would be socialist.

Oh yes, the State would know how to do it best. Trust the DfT to know what's best and how to obtain a good product at best value for money.

:roll:

 

[asylumxl]

Yes its been said about three times already, they are to be named 377/6 and will use 379 bodyshells with 377 equipment. Southern wanted pure 377's but Bombardier said they wouldnt manufacture them anymore so its a kind of compromise.

And there in lies what I think is wrong with Bombardier. They seem to think they can dictate what the customer wants, which seems backwards to me.

They're totally complacent and think they can put in subpar bids and win purely on the grounds they're in Derby. Exactly the same situation as Alstom and the Eurostar order.

Go to Siemens and they'll ask you what you'd like to build. Go to Bombardier and they'll only ask "Electrostar or Turbostar"...

 

[Schnellzug]

As stated before, they're 377/6

http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/general/2011/12/28-boost-for-derby-as-bombardier.html

Having the same couplers does not make trains compatable. These days it's about a lot more. The 377 and 377/5 fleets could couple mechinally but couldn't work together electronically until a few weeks ago is the best example of this. In the worse case they could dead haul units but if you let them talk electronically they'd shut the trains down. That just one example of cross class issues, cross builder and between different builders means its a lot more complex then adding the trains together.

None of which need mean that rolling stock production would have to be from a monolthic state provider; every US diesel locomotive, whatever the builder and whatever the operator, can work in multiple with anything else; and even on BR, as I remarked before, locos and DMUs from different builders could work in multiple with each other. If the DfT can't ensure that this happens, then this is yet another reason for the DfT to go away and take its hands off everything and let businesses co-operate when it's in their mutual interests to do so.



There. That's an awful lot of multi-quotes, but I think that's covered everything now.

 

[Wyvern]

. . . . Southern wanted pure 377's but Bombardier said they wouldnt manufacture them anymore so its a kind of compromise.

Presumably it would mean reinstating a 377 assembly line with all the jigs and templates?? All of which would push up the price??

 

[Class377/5]

None of which need mean that rolling stock production would have to be from a monolthic state provider; every US diesel locomotive, whatever the builder and whatever the operator, can work in multiple with anything else; and even on BR, as I remarked before, locos and DMUs from different builders could work in multiple with each other. If the DfT can't ensure that this happens, then this is yet another reason for the DfT to go away and take its hands off everything and let businesses co-operate when it's in their mutual interests to do so.

There. That's an awful lot of multi-quotes, but I think that's covered everything now.

I agree. Getting all stock from one provider isn't a good thing.

The fact that stock isn't compatable is going to stay for many years to come with no signs of change from either the DfT or the manufacturers.

 

[shaun]

Would be nice to see some London Midland-style class 172s built to replace the 171s, which could be cascaded up to CrossCountry perhaps to boost capacity. They would fit in rather well, seeing as they're suitable for outer-suburban (if you whack some tables in), and externally very similar to the 377s. Closer to the 379s in fact, as the 379s have very different window designs to the rest of the 37x classes.

 

[Chris125]

Would be nice to see some London Midland-style class 172s built to replace the 171s, which could be cascaded up to CrossCountry perhaps to boost capacity. They would fit in rather well, seeing as they're suitable for outer-suburban (if you whack some tables in), and externally very similar to the 377s. Closer to the 379s in fact, as the 379s have very different window designs to the rest of the 37x classes.

Nice idea but its unlikely we'll see more DMU's built for some considerable time - with a rolling programme of electrification on the agenda, and (with some work) potentially plenty of life left in the sprinter fleet, its just not worth the risk to the ROSCO's.

Chris

 

[northwichcat]

Go to Siemens and they'll ask you what you'd like to build. Go to Bombardier and they'll only ask "Electrostar or Turbostar"...

Go to Siemens and they'll say "Which type of Desiro do you want?"
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Nice idea but its unlikely we'll see more DMU's built for some considerable time - with a rolling programme of electrification on the agenda, and (with some work) potentially plenty of life left in the sprinter fleet, its just not worth the risk to the ROSCO's.

As has been pointed out numerous times before the majority of the 319s will provide additional capacity for the North of England, Thames Valley and South West.

North TransPennine Express electrification will release something like 30 DMUs which Network Rail intend to use indirectly as Pacer replacement.

Therefore around 100 new 2 and 3 car DMUs will still be required to replace the Pacers.

Then we have the issue of 153s currently being used in single formation and Porterbrook saying that it's non economically viable to refurbish them to be single carriage DDA compliant units so they'll either have to be reformed in to 155s or turned in to 156 centre cars, meaning extra DMUs will be needed.

So we can really say around 130 new diesel trains will need building after the next general election.

Over the ten years between 2020 and 2030 we can expect to see all Sprinters withdrawn meaning even with additional electrification schemes there certainly won't be DMUs sitting around with nothing to do.

 

[Wyvern]

Go to Siemens and they'll say "Which type of Desiro do you want?"

Whether you're Siemens or Hitachi or Alsthom or anyone else you are going to quote for a variant of an existing model for which you have the production line set up. To provide an entirely new design you would have quote so high a price you wouldn't stand a chance.

 

[the sniper]

Go to Siemens and they'll ask you what you'd like to build. Go to Bombardier and they'll only ask "Electrostar or Turbostar"...

Erm, I think you've been blinded by your anti-Bombardier bias. Beyond the Desiro, what exactly are Siemens offering?

You also seem to forget that the large deliveries of stock to London Underground from Bombardier were neither Electostars or Turbostars...

 

[ushawk]

Would be nice to see some London Midland-style class 172s built to replace the 171s, which could be cascaded up to CrossCountry perhaps to boost capacity. They would fit in rather well, seeing as they're suitable for outer-suburban (if you whack some tables in), and externally very similar to the 377s. Closer to the 379s in fact, as the 379s have very different window designs to the rest of the 37x classes.

Surely electrification of the Uckfield and Marshlink lines would be better value for money than replacing stock which isnt that old - that and the couplers dont match so they will need changing, unsure if thats just a simple change or whether the software needs changing.

 

[Schnellzug]

Whether you're Siemens or Hitachi or Alsthom or anyone else you are going to quote for a variant of an existing model for which you have the production line set up. To provide an entirely new design you would have quote so high a price you wouldn't stand a chance.

Although GE seemed to consider it was worth taking a punt on designing something completely new completely from scratch, I suppose in the hope that it would give them a foothold in the Euopean market ...

 

[Wyvern]

Yes, but they were newcomers to the market. Moreover their design was intended for the whole of Europe and elsewhere with only minor variations. I wonder how much profit they made on the Class 70, and how many more they need to sell elsewhere on the continent to recoup their investment.

Designing a loco for the British loading gauge means they have one that should go anywhere.

 

[MCR247]

You also seem to forget that the large deliveries of stock to London Underground from Bombardier were neither Electostars or Turbostars...

And if Siemens had bid for that do you think they'd have offered a 444?

 

[starrymarkb]

Other manufacturers seem more willing to do custom builds though. The Key is to use as many common components and systems as possible. Look at Stadler who specialise in short run custom builds