DB might cancel its second ICE-L order?

[Austriantrain]

Moderator note: split from

Talgo AVRIL

Thread reopened for @signed

www.railforums.co.uk

Being reported in spanish newspapers that Renfe now expect Avril to be approved in France by the end of ……. 2028, Paris services to start in 2029.

That would appear to leave Le Train without a train.

Chances of Talgo still existing in 4 years’ time?

Adding to Talgo's problems, a German-language railway Journal (Eisenbahnrevue International, a decent one, issue 2/2025; see table of content here: https://www.minirex.ch/pdf/inhalt/eri.pdf) reports that DB might cancel its second (and much larger) ICE-L order, leaving it with just the first 23 sets.

 

[nwales58]

... reports that DB might cancel its second (and much larger) ICE-L order, leaving it with just the first 23 sets.

Any idea why?

My impression was that Talgo are still OK at delivering coaches but power cars and integrating it all into a reliable EMU seems beyond them.

 

[EnriqueEspaña]

Any idea why?

My impression was that Talgo are still OK at delivering coaches but power cars and integrating it all into a reliable EMU seems.

Is the ICE-L self powered? I saw driving cabs at each end i thought on a video, probably just DVTs

 

[MarkyT]

Is the ICE-L self powered? I saw driving cabs at each end i thought on a video, probably just DVTs

I understand they're intended to be hauled and propelled by locomotives.

 

[AdamWW]

I understand they're intended to be hauled and propelled by locomotives.

By a TALGO suppplied locomotive I believe, but with the abillity to run with other types.

 

[nwales58]

I understand they're intended to be hauled and propelled by locomotives.

ICE-L are coaches, with a driving trailer, so I had assumed Talgo could get that right. The loco could be anyone's if necessary.

The S-106 (and for that matter the S-730 overweight mess) are EMUs that Talgo does not seem to be able to build reliably, let alone get approved for a hostile environment.

So are DB unhappy with the ICE-L? If so, what is wrong? Or is DB simply changing plan towards more units rather than hauled stock?

 

[Austriantrain]

Any idea why?

My impression was that Talgo are still OK at delivering coaches but power cars and integrating it all into a reliable EMU seems beyond them.

There was no reason given - just a mention of strong rumours that DB did not deny when confronted with them.

Since it has also been reported elsewhere that DSB will start using their sets in spring, maybe the reasons have nothing to do with the sets (I can easily Imagine Talgo not being able to deliver the locos, but those can be substituted).

 

[JonasB]

Since it has also been reported elsewhere that DSB will start using their sets in spring, maybe the reasons have nothing to do with the sets (I can easily Imagine Talgo not being able to deliver the locos, but those can be substituted).

DSB has postponed the introduction of the Talgos many times and the current plan is that they will be introduced this year, no mention of a more exact date. Whether that will be become reality or if it will be postponed again is a good question.

 

[43096]

By a TALGO suppplied locomotive I believe, but with the abillity to run with other types.

Yes, there was a variation in the ICE-L contract (I suspect with no cost, in part compensation for delay) to change the multi-working protocol from TALGO's own to the more standard WTB-ÖBB. That gives DB a get-out as they could then use Vectrons when the TALGO locos don't perform as expected/are late.

 

[AdamWW]

Yes, there was a variation in the ICE-L contract (I suspect with no cost, in part compensation for delay) to change the multi-working protocol from TALGO's own to the more standard WTB-ÖBB. That gives DB a get-out as they could then use Vectrons when the TALGO locos don't perform as expected/are late.

Sounds like a good plan anyway to have more flexibility.

 

[Gerald Fiennes]

Given Germany's financial situation, a delay of this order (plus of course not going forward with the planned new ICE order) is no huge surprise, surely?

 

[duesselmartin]

could be the DB finanical situation. Tender for ICE5 was also unsuccessful. There is however a lot of stock that needs to be replaced.

 

[nwales58]

Don't know whether this is new information or not.

IRJ article today:

ICE L for Berlin - Amsterdam delayed

DB Long Distance will use Siemens-built ICE 3neo high-speed trains on the Berlin - Amsterdam route from December instead of ICE L trains manufactured by Talgo.

www.railjournal.com

“Due to delivery delays at the Spanish manufacturer Talgo, the Berlin - Amsterdam connection cannot yet be converted to ICE L trains as originally planned,” DB Long Distance told IRJ

... neither the coaches nor the locomotives are yet approved for operation in Germany and the Netherlands ...

 

[duesselmartin]

with no ICE5 in sight and now the ICE L delayed or even partially cancelled, DB will have to think about how to replace an aging fleet.

 

[Flying Snail]

with no ICE5 in sight and now the ICE L delayed or even partially cancelled, DB will have to think about how to replace an aging fleet.

Reverse the decision on withdrawing ICE2 stock and refurb them instead?

 

[duesselmartin]

Reverse the decision on withdrawing ICE2 stock and refurb them instead?

Reliabilty is an issue on them. The coaches are lighter than on ICE 1 and it shows wear

 

[DanielB]

neither the coaches nor the locomotives are yet approved for operation in Germany and the Netherlands ...

There is a set of coaches in the Netherlands currently for testing, hauled by a Vectron however. Though in december Amsterdam - Berlin is planned to be converted to ICE3neo temporarily as they don't expect to be able to convert to ICE L yet in the 2026 timetable.

 

[Halish Railway]

What was the logic in ordering locomotive hauled stock for the Amsterdam to Berlin service instead of dual-voltage ICE 4s? 250 KPH capability would have certainly been useful considering these services now run non-stop from Hanover Hbf to Berlin-Spandau.

I can see the logic in ordering stock with buffers for Intercity services that go away from the wires, but I’d imagine that DB may regret ordering these instead of a proven product like the Siemens Viaggio or even a bi-mode multiple unit.

 

[43096]

Reliabilty is an issue on them. The coaches are lighter than on ICE 1 and it shows wear

They could of course have retained the three trailers removed from each ICE1 set, retain a ICE2 restaurant and form up 20 more 2+9 sets with ICE2 power cars.

 

[DanielB]

What was the logic in ordering locomotive hauled stock for the Amsterdam to Berlin service instead of dual-voltage ICE 4s? 250 KPH capability would have certainly been useful considering these services now run non-stop from Hanover Hbf to Berlin-Spandau.

When ICE L was ordered it wasn't meant to be named ICE AFAIK, hence the different type of stock.
Dual voltage ICE3neo has the disadvantage of less capacity than the current stock, but platforms are too short for double sets on the Berlin - Amsterdam route.

 

[popeter45]

What was the logic in ordering locomotive hauled stock for the Amsterdam to Berlin service instead of dual-voltage ICE 4s? 250 KPH capability would have certainly been useful considering these services now run non-stop from Hanover Hbf to Berlin-Spandau.

I can see the logic in ordering stock with buffers for Intercity services that go away from the wires, but I’d imagine that DB may regret ordering these instead of a proven product like the Siemens Viaggio or even a bi-mode multiple unit.

i belive the main reason isnt the Amsterdam-Berlin route but instead thats just padding for a larger order to replace IC1's on the sylt trains that need to switch out for a diesel loco

 

[ABB125]

i belive the main reason isnt the Amsterdam-Berlin route but instead thats just padding for a larger order to replace IC1's on the sylt trains that need to switch out for a diesel loco

4 return trains a day seems to be a massive case of "tail wagging the dog" - surely it would be simpler/cheaper to work out a method of diesel-hauling an ICE set then increase the size of the latest ICE order appropriately?

 

[Austriantrain]

i belive the main reason isnt the Amsterdam-Berlin route but instead thats just padding for a larger order to replace IC1's on the sylt trains that need to switch out for a diesel loco

Certainly also a wish to diversify suppliers instead of being dependent on Siemens. Just like the DB Regio Skoda Order for Munich - Nuremberg. Oh wait…. That didn’t turn out too well. …

 

[bahnause]

Certainly also a wish to diversify suppliers instead of being dependent on Siemens. Just like the DB Regio Skoda Order for Munich - Nuremberg. Oh wait…. That didn’t turn out too well. …

Under current tendering law, direct awards of this value are not possible.

 

[43096]

Certainly also a wish to diversify suppliers instead of being dependent on Siemens. Just like the DB Regio Skoda Order for Munich - Nuremberg. Oh wait…. That didn’t turn out too well. …

If Talgo can’t get the ICE-L locos to function, then the obvious things is to be dependent on Siemens and activate options in DB’s existing Vectron framework contracts.

 

[Austriantrain]

Under current tendering law, direct awards of this value are not possible.

I am well aware of that and it certainly was not a direct award. I am also aware of the real-life leeway there is in public procurement procedures in markets with very few able suppliers.

 

[andersj]

What was the logic in ordering locomotive hauled stock for the Amsterdam to Berlin service instead of dual-voltage ICE 4s? 250 KPH capability would have certainly been useful considering these services now run non-stop from Hanover Hbf to Berlin-Spandau.

The initial order had 45 7-car ICE 4 with dual voltage for international traffic to Amsterdam, which later got changed to 37 trains without dual voltage.

The ICE 4 buying process was long and complicated and the costs ended up being higher than DB hoped once the tendering was done. Initially it was planned to buy 300 ICE 4 to replace the IC1 coaches, ICE 1, ICE 2 and ICE 3. The plan was also to buy Bombardier Traxx diesel engines (BR 246) to pull a 7-car ICE 4 to Westerland and other destinations without catenaries. There were also options for ICE 4 for use in France, Luxembourg, Italy, Poland and The Czech Republic.
It was supposed to be "the IC/E train" and IC2, ICE L and ICE 3neo are results of the partially failed ICE 4 program.

There is a lot of writing about the ICE 4 buying process on the German Wikipedia site.

 

[popeter45]

ICE 4 always felt like a downgrade compared to the ICE 3, no multi voltage, lower top speed etc

any idea what the broard plan was for the now failed ICE 5 tender?

 

[andersj]

ICE 5 was probably too ambitious - why tender 300 km/h trains when you barely have any 300 km/h lines and 90 ICE 3neo's on order? I don't even think there are any 300 km/h lines under construction right now. Ulm-Stuttgart high speed line is build for 250 km/h and Augsburg-Ulm will be build for 265 km/h.

The wise thing to do is probably order some more ICE 4 and then postpone the ICE 5 project to a time when more 300 km/h high speed lines are actually under construction.

 

[43102EMR]

ICE 5 was probably too ambitious - why tender 300 km/h trains when you barely have any 300 km/h lines and 90 ICE 3neo's on order?

300km/h was specified learning from the ICE 4 blunder where 250km/h (and even the upgraded 265km/h in some cases) was considered too low for the HSLs they often find themselves running on (i.e. Nuremberg-Ingolstadt and Cologne-Frankfurt). The large ICE 3neo order I imagine played a part in the cancellation.