• 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!

Fresh hopes for Bombardier and XC

Status
Not open for further replies.

DDB

Member
Joined
11 Sep 2011
Messages
733
The article sounds like 222s are a lot less likely to receive a Pantograph vehicle compared to the XC Voyagers, even though the option for a Pantograph vehicle on a 222 is available.

Maybe just give 222s working Corby services, which stop at Bedford, a Pantograph vehicle and maybe use them to replace existing vehicles to allow a few of the 222s on other services to be lengthened opposed to giving Corby services the extra capacity.

Once the current round of electrification has been completed there will be hopefully a set of experienced overhead wire erectors and all the required equipment looking for something to do. The MML is I believe a favourite because it is relatively self contained.

They could wire the whole thing first then replace all the trains in one go with new electric. Or, they could do the Bedford to Leicester bit first and add pantograph coaches. IIRC every EMT service stops at Leicester so that is a suitable place to raise/lower the pantograph while while the rest is wired.

The other question is what about the services that run on from Sheffield to Leeds and York. If XC are already fully equipped with bimode trains that doing that extra bit would extend their use of the wires down as far as Derby which would then surely be a short step to filling in the gap from Derby to Birmingham New Street.

Once the whole of the MML is done (the summer Saturday extension to Scarborough would presumably have to be dragged or abolished) the bi mode 222s could then be replaced by new pure electric trains.

The increased but far from total overhead wire cover of the country must mean that there would be plenty of services that would benefit from second hand bimodes. I.e Nottingham to Cardiff or some of the transpennine routes
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
7,246
Location
UK
Confused? The whole basis for this report is that it is only about XC's trains...

I was think,ing as an extension.

They build XC panto coaches
Then whilst they build the other panto coaches, XC think 'this is better, more people have seats and our revenue is up as we have more people travelling. then its not impossible some more XC coaches could be ordered.

Voilla, 7 coach voyagers (what they should have been all along)
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
18,064
Location
Reston City Centre
I was think,ing as an extension.

They build XC panto coaches
Then whilst they build the other panto coaches, XC think 'this is better, more people have seats and our revenue is up as we have more people travelling. then its not impossible some more XC coaches could be ordered.

Voilla, 7 coach voyagers (what they should have been all along)

If they were all seven coaches, you can guarantee that 95% of complaints about them will stop.

Once people have a seat on most journeys they are much less likely to complain about minor things
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
20,392
With modern fine control systems for the pantograph is there any particular reason why the pan couldn't be raised under power while the train was moving?
All it has to do is go up gradually till it contacts the wires and then once the connection is made the traction control system can stop the diesels, its not like a trolleybus pole which could "miss".
 

jw

Member
Joined
25 Jul 2010
Messages
176
Am I correct in thinking that the pantograph coach would be an unpowered (ie non-traction) coach? If so, is there scope for any additional trailer coaches without reducing performance, to provide growth capacity?
 

Nym

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2007
Messages
9,806
Location
Somewhere, not in London
Am I correct in thinking that the pantograph coach would be an unpowered (ie non-traction) coach? If so, is there scope for any additional trailer coaches without reducing performance, to provide growth capacity?

Do you mean unpowered as in not containing traction motors, or unpowered as in not containing a diesel generator?

The former is a maybe, it depends on what Bombardier decide on the weight, the latter definitely no, there just isn't space.
 

jones_bangor

Member
Joined
11 Mar 2011
Messages
856
If they were all seven coaches, you can guarantee that 95% of complaints about them will stop.

Once people have a seat on most journeys they are much less likely to complain about minor things

I agree, a 7-coach Voyager would be a very good train (particularly if only 1/7th were first class).
 

Wyvern

Established Member
Joined
27 Oct 2009
Messages
1,573
AS I thought, even if Bombardier are awarded a contract, the trains are not likely to be built in Derby, according to today's news. Derby doesn't have the facilities to build the body shells.
 

cle

Established Member
Joined
17 Nov 2010
Messages
5,671
Aren't Bombardier building 200+ S stock trains?

If that's not enough, can't they bring forward the next tube stock replacement - Piccadilly I believe - which needs doing anyway?

Or bring forward the extensions to the LOROL network mentioned in the RUS? Combined with wiring GOBLIN, which would require some more full 378 units, not just extra cars - but obviously having both on the production line simultaneously would make sense.

And then the 171s could go elsewhere. 8x 2 cars could replace some Pacers. And 171s are probably generally a decent wider Pacer replacement - and made by Bombardier too so plenty of work there.
 

Chris125

Established Member
Joined
12 Nov 2009
Messages
3,272
Location
Isle of Wight
AS I thought, even if Bombardier are awarded a contract, the trains are not likely to be built in Derby, according to today's news. Derby doesn't have the facilities to build the body shells.

I believe the aim is to keep the design team in work.

Chris
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
Theres around 100 design engineers, its thought designing the coach for the Voyagers will keep them in work for a year or two.
 

sprinterguy

Veteran Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
11,579
Location
Macclesfield
Or bring forward the extensions to the LOROL network mentioned in the RUS? Combined with wiring GOBLIN, which would require some more full 378 units, not just extra cars - but obviously having both on the production line simultaneously would make sense.

And then the 171s could go elsewhere. 8x 2 cars could replace some Pacers. And 171s are probably generally a decent wider Pacer replacement - and made by Bombardier too so plenty of work there.
Surely if you're talking about electrifying the GOBLIN, you mean 172s, not 171s?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Surprise surprise, the bodyshells for any future XC pantograph car order won't be built in Derby. They'll end up being built in Bruges, which gives the media a nice fresh source of outrage to keep the story "current",:roll: but nothing that anyone in the rail industry didn't already know. As a couple of other posters have said, the work would be aimed at keeping the design team in work.

Southern have just announced a tender for 130 additional carriages to be delivered by the end of 2013, so that should provide Derby with some additional work as it would make no sense for these additional trains not to be Electrostars.
 
Last edited:

DDB

Member
Joined
11 Sep 2011
Messages
733
There will be lots of design work required to turn a concept into an actual build-able design.

I can well belive that Derby doesn't have the facilities for steel bodies anymore as Bombardier were aprrantly wanting to make Derby its "world centre for aluminium train bodies" see link

I assume they will make the bodies overseas but do the fitting out in Derby.
Alternatively but less likely they could make the bodies out of Aluminium as the pantograph carriages will be different anyway.
I am sure Bombardier understands what is expected of it in terms of UK content in return for Government support without the need for anyone to write it down where it could be challenged in the courts. You don't **** off your customer!
 

T163R

Member
Joined
15 Oct 2010
Messages
475
Location
Paris, France
There's something I don't understand here.
Do BBD need to make panto cars for Voyagers ?
If these are the cars they are talking about in the latest BBC article, then I don't understand: were the original Voyager cars built with aluminium or with steel ?
 

sprinterguy

Veteran Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
11,579
Location
Macclesfield
Did BBD build the Voyagers in Derby ?
No: The bodyshells were constructed at Bruges, and then many of them shipped over to Britain pre-painted for fitting out at Crofton, Wakefield, though I believe that some of the units were fully fitted out at Bruges as well.
 

T163R

Member
Joined
15 Oct 2010
Messages
475
Location
Paris, France
No: The bodyshells were constructed at Bruges, and then many of them shipped over to Britain pre-painted for fitting out at Crofton, Wakefield, though I believe that some of the units were fully fitted out at Bruges as well.

Okay so that's why they can't build Voyagers again (lol) in Derby. Thanks
 

starrymarkb

Established Member
Joined
4 Aug 2009
Messages
5,985
Location
Exeter
Surely if you're talking about electrifying the GOBLIN, you mean 172s, not 171s?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Surprise surprise, the bodyshells for any future XC pantograph car order won't be built in Derby. They'll end up being built in Bruges,

Pretty sure they won't - IIRC the Brugge factory has since shut...

I wouldn't be surprised if Bombardier are not trying to get everything on one megasite eventually.

Of course if you buy enough trains you could always insist on local manufacture. I believe OBB did this with the Taurus with OBB building under contract to Siemens, hence Eurosprinter Production was from Linz. In OBBs case the production run was 400!
 
Last edited:

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
20,392
What about the AGC dual mode gear fitted to Electrostar derived bodies.....that could be a decent seller especially with Pacer replacement looming and major new electrification on the horizon.
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
Ive been thinking, the main problem with the Derby plant is they dont have any orders from 2014 onwards. The two new orders on the table, Southern trains have to be in service by 2013 and the Voyager works wouldnt take longer than a year so neither address the fundamental long term future of the plant from 2014 when orders run out.
 

Drsatan

Established Member
Joined
24 Aug 2009
Messages
1,887
Location
Land of the Sprinters
That's why I'd suggest that one of the TOCs follows Porterbrook's example in the 1990s and place a speculative order for about 100 172 coaches for any TOC. I imagine most of them would go to Northern.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
34,318
That's why I'd suggest that one of the TOCs follows Porterbrook's example in the 1990s and place a speculative order for about 100 172 coaches for any TOC. I imagine most of them would go to Northern.

How would Northern pay the leasing costs for these 100 speculative brand new units then?

It can't have escaped your notice that the trivial increase in Northern capacity that the LM 150 cascade provides is costing the DfT £millions in increased subsidy...
 

Drsatan

Established Member
Joined
24 Aug 2009
Messages
1,887
Location
Land of the Sprinters
How would Northern pay the leasing costs for these 100 speculative brand new units then?

It can't have escaped your notice that the trivial increase in Northern capacity that the LM 150 cascade provides is costing the DfT £millions in increased subsidy...

I didn't think about how Northern would pay for the leasing costs; I just said if one of the ROSCOs could place a speculative order, for delivery in 2014, then maybe one of the new TOCs operating post 2014 would be interested in ordering all or some of them.

The reason I suggested Northern is because ordering new units would help get rid of the Pacers.
 

IanXC

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
18 Dec 2009
Messages
6,615
How would Northern pay the leasing costs for these 100 speculative brand new units then?

It can't have escaped your notice that the trivial increase in Northern capacity that the LM 150 cascade provides is costing the DfT £millions in increased subsidy...

But have Northern not reached the cap on some of their services? If they had a growth franchise I recon there would be much more cash around for replacing expired stock.
 

Drsatan

Established Member
Joined
24 Aug 2009
Messages
1,887
Location
Land of the Sprinters
But have Northern not reached the cap on some of their services? If they had a growth franchise I recon there would be much more cash around for replacing expired stock.

Hopefully the next Northern franchise will include provision for passenger growth, but don't hold your breath:roll:
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
18,064
Location
Reston City Centre
The reason I suggested Northern is because ordering new units would help get rid of the Pacers

We know that Pacer replacement will need about a hundred new DMUs built.

We know that any "speculative" stock has always been snapped up.

We know that Northern will be a new franchise before long, with different "growth" plans to the current one.

He who dares, Rodders... ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top