Crossrail trains decision made Bombardier awarded contract

[Nym]

I'd rather Southern ran TSGN than Stagecoach. I know a lot of people bash Southern, but when you look at the problems that occur the majority of the time it is out of their hands. As for Stagecoach their East Midlands Trains operation is a complete joke, I have never ever had a train on time (within 15 minutes) with them. A few times it has been down to a train failure, mainly HSTs.

So basically there saying it's Siemens do a better job with aftersales care than Bombardier...?

 

[jopsuk]

regarding servicing of modern stock- Siemens run the Northam depot don't they? Do Bombardier have similar facilities for Southern, Southeastern, EMT?

 

[ModernRailways]

So basically there saying it's Siemens do a better job with aftersales care than Bombardier...?

My point was, was that as part of the specification it said Siemens would help perform maintenance at their depots (similar to TPE). Bombardier haven't done that, that doesn't say they are better or worse. Whether that be down to the specification or Bombardier not wanting too is something we probably aren't likely to find out.

If Bombardier did play a part in maintenance at Southern/SouthEastern and other depots where Bombardier trains are maintained then those TOCs may well benefit a huge amount. I believe the Crossrail contract stated that whoever won the contract would also have to assist in the maintenance of trains at the Crossrail depot.

 

[chris11256]

From my understanding Bombardier do the maintenance on the 357s for c2c.

 

[Manchester77]

regarding servicing of modern stock- Siemens run the Northam depot don't they? Do Bombardier have similar facilities for Southern, Southeastern, EMT?

Bombardier do servicing of the 220s and 221s at Central Rivers and they seem to have fairly high reliability.

 

[ModernRailways]

From my understanding Bombardier do the maintenance on the 357s for c2c.

And those have quite high reliability if my memory serves me correctly. So does this just say that Southern and other TOCs maintenance is lacking or that they don't know 100% what they are doing? Maybe something for all future rolling stock contracts should be that the company who wins the contract will also help in providing after sales maintenance of the units.

 

[LBSCR Times]

If Bombardier did play a part in maintenance at Southern/SouthEastern and other depots where Bombardier trains are maintained then those TOCs may well benefit a huge amount. I believe the Crossrail contract stated that whoever won the contract would also have to assist in the maintenance of trains at the Crossrail depot.

Southern's stock is maintained by Southern.
Having experience of Siemens maintaining SWT stock too, give me Siemens any day.....

 

[ModernRailways]

Southern's stock is maintained by Southern.
Having experience of Siemens maintaining SWT stock too, give me Siemens any day.....

That's what I was saying. Southern maintain their own stock whereas Siemens assists South West, TPE, and possibly LM. This may be a huge factor in reliability as Bombardier assist in the maintenance of the C2C units as well as 220s, and 221s and these are very reliable, they may not be popular but they are reliable. It's not often you hear of a XC train fault causing disruption - their HSTs tend to be the ones that fail.

My point was that it would appear that having the train designer/manufacturer there to assist with maintenance is a key factor in the reliability of services.

 

[jimm]

That's what I was saying. Southern maintain their own stock whereas Siemens assists South West, TPE, and possibly LM. This may be a huge factor in reliability as Bombardier assist in the maintenance of the C2C units as well as 220s, and 221s and these are very reliable, they may not be popular but they are reliable. It's not often you hear of a XC train fault causing disruption - their HSTs tend to be the ones that fail.

My point was that it would appear that having the train designer/manufacturer there to assist with maintenance is a key factor in the reliability of services.

Siemens don't 'assist' with maintenance, they run the depots and have contracts with the operators requiring them to turn out a specified number of sets for service each day, with penalties if they don't, so a powerful incentive to make sure the trains are reliable. Same goes for Bombardier's operations at Central Rivers for 220s and 221s and Alstom's Pendolino depots.

 

[59CosG95]

Siemens don't 'assist' with maintenance, they run the depots and have contracts with the operators requiring them to turn out a specified number of sets for service each day, with penalties if they don't, so a powerful incentive to make sure the trains are reliable. Same goes for Bombardier's operations at Central Rivers for 220s and 221s and Alstom's Pendolino depots.

But the fact that Southern run their depots means that these penalties are overlooked. I hope Bombardier take control of Selhurst & Lovers' Walk and Siemens run Three Bridges when TLink arrives.

 

[ModernRailways]

Siemens don't 'assist' with maintenance, they run the depots and have contracts with the operators requiring them to turn out a specified number of sets for service each day, with penalties if they don't, so a powerful incentive to make sure the trains are reliable. Same goes for Bombardier's operations at Central Rivers for 220s and 221s and Alstom's Pendolino depots.

So they maintain all of the 450s/444s? I thought they only carried out larger jobs, and other smaller jobs were still SWTs?

If so, that just backs my point up more, that having the actual train manufacturer maintain the trains improves reliability.

But the fact that Southern run their depots means that these penalties are overlooked. I hope Bombardier take control of Selhurst & Lovers' Walk and Siemens run Three Bridges when TLink arrives.

They still have penalties, only from Network Rail and delay repay to passengers. SWT are likely to make Siemens pay up which works in SWTs favour.

 

[jimm]

But the fact that Southern run their depots means that these penalties are overlooked. I hope Bombardier take control of Selhurst & Lovers' Walk and Siemens run Three Bridges when TLink arrives.

Not sure what you mean by this. There are no penalties because Southern chose to take responsibility for the maintenance of its trains, rather than contracting Bombardier to do it.

The contract for the new Thameslink fleet will see Siemens maintain the fleet. It will be up to the new franchisee to decide how to maintain the other rolling stock it operates.

 

[Class377/5]

But the fact that Southern run their depots means that these penalties are overlooked. I hope Bombardier take control of Selhurst & Lovers' Walk and Siemens run Three Bridges when TLink arrives.

The penalties are not overlooked as the TOC is fined for every short form. If say Siemens produces an 8 car vs a 12 car they get fined and the money passed on to the TOC then to the DfT.

Bombardier prefers to sell the stock and provide background support than hands on however with it bidding for both Thameslink and Crossrail thats more involved maybe we'll see thrm take the whole life package to customers in the future.

 

[Bigfoot]

Siemens are in a 25 year total maintenance contract for the 444's and 450's. I guess it with angel rather than swt though.

 

[DJL]

Is it that SWT want the support contract and Southern don't
or is it that Siemens want to provide the support contract but bombardier don't?

 

[ModernRailways]

Is it that SWT want the support contract and Southern don't
or is it that Siemens want to provide the support contract but bombardier don't?

It's no doubt down to the ROSCOs over all whether it is done or not. It will also depend on the original contract, a lot of contracts are likely to state that after sales maintenance will have to be done by the train manufacturer.

 

[AndyNLondon]

The penalties are not overlooked as the TOC is fined for every short form. If say Siemens produces an 8 car vs a 12 car they get fined and the money passed on to the TOC then to the DfT.

Sure, the TOC is fined for short formed services, but if they're handling the maintenance in-house then is that fine charged to the maintenance division (internally, by the dreaded beancounters), or does it just come out of a general pot? Whereas with the manufacturer handling the maintenance and taking the hit for the fine, the financial incentive is that bit sharper in the management of the maintenance, surely?