-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
DLR B23 Stock (CAF Inneo)
- Thread starter TRAX
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
A savvy contract would then have "we will deduct the cost of any additional heavy overhauls needed to keep full service running in the event of delivery later than <X>" written into it. Because otherwise, you're effectively a hostage to the builders of the new stock.
The new stock has been delivered though.
Well it shouldn't have been. Delivery is to the buyers premises (which they are not on) in full working order (which they are not), and demonstrated same to an agreed acceptance schedule.
You're complaining for the sake for complaining again
boiledbeans2
Member
Is CAF at fault in this scenario? Or is it TfL?
That depends on the terms of the contract, and the acceptance schedule is likely to consider how responsibilities are balanced where there are changes involving both rolling stock manufacturer and customer, as here.
On the little we know, it’s plausible that, as defined in the contract(s), the trains are absolutely fine and that the issue is with the signalling. Just as it’s plausible that the problem is with the trains on perfectly serviceable signalling.
Integration is hard, and shouting the odds about fault tends to make it harder
I think the real answer is that we don't know, because there has been no meaningful statement from TfL while all this drags on stating what the issue(s) actually are. It does seem that given the DLR signalling has worked straightforwardly for the last 30 years, over multiple batches of new trains being delivered.
Given the continuing silence and lack of resolution one wonders if this is going to end up in court.
OneTrackMinded
Member
When it comes to railway procurement, the legal proceedings all happen behind the scenes. It can look all positive from a public POV but behind closed doors they’re engaged in an intense legal battle.
Gag Halfrunt
Member
- Joined
- 23 Jul 2019
- Messages
- 993
Could the B23s being longer be part of the problem?
Having had experience (non-rail) of a couple of "troubled" projects, it's also often difficult to see how much work is required to fix "obvious" problems - and how any dispute can affect that.
While I'm entirely willing to think the worst of CAF (their "Cheap as F..." nickname speaks volumes), it's impossible to know without detailed knowledge of both contracts and the underlying infrastructure. The nature of the fault that stopped the B23s running seems niche enough that isolating, fixing and then proving the fix may well take a while - but once done, be quickly applied across the fleet.
Is it fair to say the 'fix' is likely to be a software change rather than hardware modification anyway?
So yes I understand the contract arrangements but from a practical point of view it doesn't really matter where particular trains are.
So yes I understand the contract arrangements but from a practical point of view it doesn't really matter where particular trains are.
Indeed. But do we know that the shortcoming is to do with physical design? After all, these are trains whose control systems are software based
Snow1964
Established Member
I understand TfL asked for delivery to be delayed, and it stems back to their choice of contractor to build the sidings for the trains, who didn't because they went bust. The subsequently got someone to complete the build work.
My hunch is CAF would probably not have wanted them stored either, as much easier to arrange delivery at standard intervals after each one is tested and passed, than be asked for whole batch close together. Don't forget it takes the specialist delivery trailers nearly a week to load, drive to Becton, unload, and return for next one.
I'm afraid, as I have written before, that I can't accept this one. The contractor, Buckingham Group, went bust in August 2023. It's now 2026, and not even one train has been got to run reliably. TfL have continued to milk this one for years as a cause of delay. The sidings were not an Apollo moonshot project, they were ... sidings. All designed with the drawings, all the bills of quantity done, etc. That's pretty straightforward stuff. Oh, and TfL did require the contractor to have taken out a Completion Bond - didn't they?
I have no view on whether TfL are or are not justified in claiming this one. But I do know from long experience that delays in one part of a project can ripple through in unexpected ways, and that delays can be magnified as a result.
bahnause
Member
This can be included in contracts. However, it will affect the price and the number of offers. No manufacturer will take on additional risks without financial reinsurance.
Therefore, there is always a 'sweet spot' where the interests of suppliers and customers align. There will be no unlimited liability. A financially ruined manufacturer would also make operating a fleet difficult.
Added to this is the problem of assigning responsibility in complex projects. This is often anything but clear-cut.
Therefore, there is always a 'sweet spot' where the interests of suppliers and customers align. There will be no unlimited liability. A financially ruined manufacturer would also make operating a fleet difficult.
Added to this is the problem of assigning responsibility in complex projects. This is often anything but clear-cut.
Absolutely, on all points.
Snow1964
Established Member
Yes correct, the testing discovered some locations where signalling (the block sections, there are no physical signals, just junction indicators) were slightly out for speed limit, so a speed limit cut was applied in these sections.
It subsequently was found that in the wet when adhesion was lower, in certain circumstance an overshoot happened, and the new trains were all taken out of passenger service until a fix could be implemented.
TfL have never said exactly what problem is, or how it will be resolved, even in their Board papers. (next TfL Board papers due middle of coming week, which may or may not give update)
torontoaddick
Member
B23 testing is due to re-start in the very near future.
They're the same length as a 3-car B2007
Snow1964
Established Member
TfL has uploaded the papers for next weeks TfL Board meeting
Page 103 has table with DLR new trains
2025-26 actuals. £196m
2026-27 (April- March) plan £120m
2027-28 plan £106m
2028-29 plan £18m
gives some sort of indication of amount being spent in each financial year on the new trains, and expecting to still pay over £220m. It also shows that they have actually paid nearly £200m for trains not yet in use.
Same table also has plan for new trams
2026-27 plan £9m
2027-28 plan £29m
2028-29 plan £48m
2029-30 plan £50m
So expecting to spend over £130m on new trams, and delivery timescale will run to at least 2030
Page 103 has table with DLR new trains
2025-26 actuals. £196m
2026-27 (April- March) plan £120m
2027-28 plan £106m
2028-29 plan £18m
gives some sort of indication of amount being spent in each financial year on the new trains, and expecting to still pay over £220m. It also shows that they have actually paid nearly £200m for trains not yet in use.
Same table also has plan for new trams
2026-27 plan £9m
2027-28 plan £29m
2028-29 plan £48m
2029-30 plan £50m
So expecting to spend over £130m on new trams, and delivery timescale will run to at least 2030
And still no updates on when they will return to service...