Surely not - DfT orders 8 more carriages than proposed.

[northwichcat]

Apparently, 80 Class 350 carriages are being ordered, meaning LM getting an additional 2 x 4 car trains over the original proposal.


Desiro EMUs for London Midland and TPE ordered at last. 10 four cars for each operator. Contract value £148 million.
http://twitter.com/#!/Captain_Deltic

Here's where LM announced they were expecting 8 extra 350s:
http://www.londonmidland.com/news/l...n-midland-and-for-first-transpennine-express/

 

[Yew]

Will those replace the 150's that LM where planning to keep? (the 150/0's IIRC?)

 

[IanXC]

I wonder if they are to allow 323s currently used elsewhere to be used on Cross City services allowing more doubling up on those, and an expansion from 3 car to 4 car on the other routes?

 

[jopsuk]

Extend even more services or perhaps displace a couple more 321s?

 

[northwichcat]

The glass half empty view would be that they would be expected to take over Manchester-Stoke from Northern and extend it using the extra 2 units plus some of the others, meaning they get more units but less extra capacity.

Will those replace the 150's that LM where planning to keep? (the 150/0's IIRC?)

LM would have liked to keep more 150s but the 172s replaced them. Any 150s they kept were seen as extra capacity. They even released 2 x 153s to FGW to be able to keep a third 150.

 

[WatcherZero]

Well the tender was for what 50-120 carriages if memory serves? 80 is still well within that and If i remember at the time of the announcement it was said the final numbers were still up in the air with the possibility of 12 for TPE, guess they got the extra 2 but gave them to LM rather than TPE.

 

[northwichcat]

Well the tender was for what 50-120 carriages if memory serves? 80 is still well within that and If i remember at the time of the announcement it was said the final numbers were still up in the air with the possibility of 12 for TPE, guess they got the extra 2 but gave them to LM rather than TPE.

I think 10 should be enough for a 2 hourly Glasgow service and a 2 hourly Edinburgh service once the services are speeded up. However, it would mean no doubled up units.

 

[87015]

A bit expensive at £148m for 20 4 car units isn't it?

 

[northwichcat]

A bit expensive at £148m for 20 4 car units isn't it?

Yes it's not the cheapest order, especially if you consider the 350s have 20m carriages not 23m carriages. The small order doesn't help - if they add on 40 extra trains for other North West electrification then you'd probably bring down the price by around £0.5m per carriage.

Then you could electrify the Valley Lines and send some of the 319s there after being fully refurbished, opposed to expecting to have the wires ready before the units are released off Thameslink, as is the case in the North West.

 

[Nym]

Isn't that expensive when you consider the unit is very out of production, if one had ordered class 380 units it would have come out cheaper...

 

[swt_passenger]

Yes it's not the cheapest order, especially if you consider the 350s have 20m carriages not 23m carriages.

Might include depot and maintenance costs, as that's the normal pattern for Siemens stock? (At least it is in England.) But I doubt the length makes much of a difference, a slightly longer tube isn't going add much cost.

Also I think a detailed vehicle by vehicle comparison (if it were possible) with SN's units masks a significant issue, in that the '5th cars' on SN's current order of 26 x 5 car trains will bring their average cost per car right down, especially if they are unpowered, as an end car is always a significantly higher cost than the intermediates anyway...

 

[northwichcat]

Isn't that expensive when you consider the unit is very out of production, if one had ordered class 380 units it would have come out cheaper...

But LM don't 380s so TPE have to have 350s as well. (The reason being that two different Siemens EMUs can't work together.)

 

[Nym]

But LM don't 380s so TPE have to have 350s as well. (The reason being that two different Siemens EMUs can't work together.)

The're VERY different units....

And just because it needs to be an LM add on order, inappropriate stock is coming to TPE, unless of course the propoganda is true and these units are tempoary until something like baby pendos come into play, or more appropriate rolling stock.

 

[Lrd]

(The reason being that two different Siemens EMUs can't work together.)

What about the 444 and 450's? They work together fairly often...

 

[Nym]

What about the 444 and 450's? They work together fairly often...

Siemens Desiro 1st Gen EMUs can work together IIRC, so you can have:

350, 360, 444 and 450s work together mechanically but not electrically...

380s use a completely different control system and doors system..

 

[WatcherZero]

80 coaches, £143m, £1.78m per carriage, not bad as pricing goes actually.

 

[northwichcat]

What about the 444 and 450's? They work together fairly often...

And the 350s and 380s, which I was referring to in the bit of the post you chose not to quote, can't work in multiple

 

[Class377/5]

The're VERY different units....

And just because it needs to be an LM add on order, inappropriate stock is coming to TPE, unless of course the propoganda is true and these units are tempoary until something like baby pendos come into play, or more appropriate rolling stock.

Why an inappropriate stock?

But LM don't 380s so TPE have to have 350s as well. (The reason being that two different Siemens EMUs can't work together.)

Very different. More like the Networkers and Electorstars technology wise.

So that now leaves Thameslink to be signed off then. And soon.

A bit expensive at £148m for 20 4 car units isn't it?

Add in the depot costs for TPE to handle electric trains and it will be higher.

 

[northwichcat]

Why an inappropriate stock?

People doing long journeys on the 185s don't find them well suited to the long journeys. A 350 is an electric version of a 185. The Manchester-Scotland service will be speeded up and that should mean less commuter traffic on it, meaning it will be even harder to justify any commuter compromised layout on the new stock.

Add in the depot costs for TPE to handle electric trains and it will be higher.

I thought that was already covered under costs given for the electrification scheme. There is only a short section to electrify as the wires go very close to the Ardwick depot as it is - probably 100m to the depot and then the depot itself.

 

[Class377/5]

People doing long journeys on the 185s don't find them well suited to the long journeys. A 350 is an electric version of a 185. The Manchester-Scotland service will be speeded up and that should mean less commuter traffic on it, meaning it will be even harder to justify any commuter compromised layout on the new stock.

I thought that was already covered under costs given for the electrification scheme. There is only a short section to electrify as the wires go very close to the Ardwick depot as it is - probably 100m to the depot and then the depot itself.

I have to say I enjoy the 350 for long distances. Have only done Leeds - Manchester on a 185 but I like them too. Then again personal taste is very subjective.

Just re-read what Roger Ford said, he say possible the reason for costs is depot costs, not is part of the reason as I first thought. But is not just wires, they need additional stabling which is likely not cheap off NR.

 

[swt_passenger]

I thought that was already covered under costs given for the electrification scheme. There is only a short section to electrify as the wires go very close to the Ardwick depot as it is - probably 100m to the depot and then the depot itself.

Won't buildings need lengthening - or were they built for the four car trains that never happened. What is possible though, is that more depot lines will be needed, because unusually these trains are additional to the depot, not replacements, ie the DMUs proposed to be cascaded to other routes will still be maintained there as well.

PS, could you go back and fix the thread title?

 

[northwichcat]

Won't buildings need lengthening - or were they built for the four car trains that never happened. What is possible though, is that more depot lines will be needed, because unusually these thrains are additional to the depot, not replacements, ie the DMUs proposed to be cascaded to other routes will still be maintained there as well.

Based on the prices given each of the 350s will cost £7.4M, which is 50% higher than the 185s which costed £4.9M each (The 185 order value was £250M.) The Ardwick depot was built as a home for the 185s, so wouldn't the 185 cost have included a more significant cost towards maintenance and storage facilities, should that be included in the price?

The original TPE order was for 56 x 3 car DMUs, with the option of adding 4th carriages as required. I don't know how that affected the depot.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I have to say I enjoy the 350 for long distances.

The 350s aren't really used on long distances opposed to medium distances currently, except for Crewe to London. Some of the 350 services that would be similar in journey time to Manchester Airport to Scotland, such as the Birmingham to Euston stoppers, have faster alternatives and are more commuter orientated services.

 

[Class377/5]

Based on the prices given each of the 350s will cost £7.4M, which is 50% higher than the 185s which costed £4.9M each (The 185 order value was £250M.) The Ardwick depot was built as a home for the 185s, so wouldn't the 185 cost have included a more significant cost towards maintenance and storage facilities, should that be included in the price?

The original TPE order was for 56 x 3 car DMUs, with the option of adding 4th carriages as required. I don't know how that affected the depot.

The 350s aren't really used on long distances opposed to medium distances currently, except for Crewe to London. Some of the 350 services that would be similar in journey time to Manchester Airport to Scotland, such as the Birmingham to Euston stoppers, have faster alternatives and are more commuter orientated services.

I've done the Euston to Brum stopper on a 350/2, which is what I was judging it on. Having fast alternates will make the units required more local based. Manchester - Scotland doesn't have any alternates direct routes right? (Been awhile since I lived up that way so not 100% sure).

As for the 185/depot, was the 185 order including depot works? I doubt that the depot was designed to cope without alterations for 4 cars but more along the lines of space to extend the sidings more in the future.

 

[Wolfie]

Based on the prices given each of the 350s will cost £7.4M, which is 50% higher than the 185s which costed £4.9M each (The 185 order value was £250M.) The Ardwick depot was built as a home for the 185s, so wouldn't the 185 cost have included a more significant cost towards maintenance and storage facilities, should that be included in the price?

The original TPE order was for 56 x 3 car DMUs, with the option of adding 4th carriages as required. I don't know how that affected the depot.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


The 350s aren't really used on long distances opposed to medium distances currently, except for Crewe to London. Some of the 350 services that would be similar in journey time to Manchester Airport to Scotland, such as the Birmingham to Euston stoppers, have faster alternatives and are more commuter orientated services.

To do a sensible cost comparison you need to work in constant value currency (what the Treasury call "net present value"). Allowing for a 6+ year gap (the Class 185s entered service in 2006 but when were they ordered?) I suspect the difference is much nearer to the 25% you might crudely expect for a 4 as opposed to 3 car train than the 50% quoted.

 

[northwichcat]

To do a sensible cost comparison you need to work in constant value currency (what the Treasury call "net present value"). Allowing for a 6+ year gap (the Class 185s entered service in 2006 but when were they ordered?) I suspect the difference is much nearer to the 25% you might crudely expect for a 4 as opposed to 3 car train than the 50% quoted.

Wait a minute - while inflation has been 4.8%, we've also had negative inflation and we need to consider that train orders are down so bidders can't up their prices too much because the demand isn't there.

While it's comparing 4 car trains and 3 car trains, the 350s are 80m long and the 185s are 69m long so the 185s are 86% of the length of a 350 and also I don't think a 350 has more toilets, with a toilet being more expensive to fit than more seats.

 

[tbtc]

Wait a minute - while inflation has been 4.8%, we've also had negative inflation and we need to consider that train orders are down so bidders can't up their prices too much because the demand isn't there.

While it's comparing 4 car trains and 3 car trains, the 350s are 80m long and the 185s are 69m long so the 185s are 86% of the length of a 350 and also I don't think a 350 has more toilets, with a toilet being more expensive to fit than more seats.

The period of negative inflation was only short lived - if we assume that the 185s were ordered a couple of years before entering service then we are talking eight years ago, so roughly 25% inflation in that time (assuming two orders of the same size, for the same number of units etc)

However what we had was a 185 order for around 150 coaches - the current order for 350s is roughly half that, so it's understandable that the 350s have a higher unit cost (as any small order of trains would have).

A lot of comparing apples and oranges going on when comparing 153x 185 coaches in about 2004 with 80x 350 coaches in 2012, but I hope that gives some context.

 

[northwichcat]

A lot of comparing apples and oranges going on when comparing 153x 185 coaches in about 2004 with 80x 350 coaches in 2012, but I hope that gives some context.

OK let's use a different comparison. I forgot a figure has been given for the new Southern order: £189M for 130 vehicles
http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/general/2011/12/28-boost-for-derby-as-bombardier.html

That's 1.45M per carriage, compared to £1.85M per carriage.

Both are for 20m carriage EMUs which are no longer the latest model.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Interesting that the euro rate in 2004 was 1.42, while now it is 1.20 (having been below 1.10 in 2009).
This means the currency costs of new 350s will be higher than the 185s/350s of 2004 by 15% or so.
This should also have worked in Bombardier's favour for the Thameslink order, but evidently it didn't make the difference.

 

[Eagle]

This should also have worked in Bombardier's favour for the Thameslink order, but evidently it didn't make the difference.

Assuming of course that Bombardier, that Germany-based company, wouldn't have built the Thameslink trains on the continent anyway... (let's not get into this argument again though).

 

[Martin222002]

OK let's use a different comparison. I forgot a figure has been given for the new Southern order: £189M for 130 vehicles
http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/general/2011/12/28-boost-for-derby-as-bombardier.html

That's 1.45M per carriage, compared to £1.85M per carriage.

Both are for 20m carriage EMUs which are no longer the latest model.

The reason for the high cost per carriage is due to the £143 million apparently including maintinence and depot modifications, ie wiring Ardwick. The Southern order however didn't include much more than just the trains themselves, but as has been said the current exchange rate will be increasing the price in comparison to previous Desiro orders.