Has Train Manufacturing Become Less Competitive?

[Sorcerer]

When it comes to new trains being introduced in the UK, it seems like there is always a default option when it comes to which sort of train operators will go for. For example, if an operator needs a suburban or regional passenger train with double doors, then they will most likely opt for the Aventra. London Overground, South Western Railway, the Elizabeth Line, Greater Anglia, and West Midlands Trains all opted for this choice with the only difference being that WMT's choice had end gangways in place. Meanwhile if you're wanting a high-speed intercity train with saloon areas and doors at the end of each coach, then the default choice is pretty much the Hitachi AT300 series. Great Western Railway and London North Eastern Railway kind of had to accept these trains because of it being part of the InterCity Express Programme in their respective franchises, but since then we've had Class 802s being chosen by GWR, Hull Trains and TransPennine Express, Class 803s by Lumo, Class 805s and 807s by Avanti West Coast, and 810s by East Midlands Railway with a redesigned nose being the only physical distinction. I understand that from a technical standpoint no class of trains are the same, with some being electric and others being bi-mode, but it seems like the options available to operators are practically monopolised.

However, having said that, I don't really recall it being much different in the past. Even though it seems like the AT300 is the default product for it's niche, it still has yet to cover every route operated by HSTs that it replaced. Additionally, the Aventra is also not simply a new train family but is in fact a successor to the Electrostar trains that very much dominate the Southeastern network. Sometimes the options are also limited because at the moment there is not many other proven options for a bi-mode intercity unit except for the Stadler FLIRTs by Greater Anglia, and this really isn't too different than back when the need for tilting trains on the West Coast Main Line lead to Alstom being the obvious choice because of how the Pendolino was already a proven design in mainland Europe. The same also applies to the Siemens Desiro which was seen in the form of the Class 350s for London Midland, Class 360s for Greater Anglia, Class 380s for ScotRail, and Class 444s and 450s for South West Trains, though these did also have a little more variety in their design features. From a business point of view, especially with the railways in this country, the safe option of opting for an already proven design is smarter than taking the risk on a new one unless you're catering to particularly unique specifications.

With all that said, I do still wish to ask the question as to whether or not train manufacturing in the UK has become less competitive and less varied than it did in the past. If so, then I also ask why might this be the case? I'd love to hear people's different thoughts on this matter because I myself generally don't have a solid answer for my own question, so I'm hoping that this thread might be able to enlighten me a bit.

 

[Bertie the bus]

There is probably more competition than any time since privatisation.

For the inner/outer suburban EMU market there is CAF, Hitachi, Bombardier and Stadler.

For DMUs there are CAF and Stadler – not bad when not that many years ago it was repeatedly stated as fact that the British train market was so insignificant no manufacturer would ever produce a UK loading gauge DMU again.

The competition for InterCity units was in the bidding for the IET contract. As it was known that contract would replace most of our InterCity fleet that required replacing it isn’t surprising the losing bidders haven’t produced competing products as the orders were always going to be minimal.

 

[JonathanH]

With all that said, I do still wish to ask the question as to whether or not train manufacturing in the UK has become less competitive and less varied than it did in the past. If so, then I also ask why might this be the case?

It is a bit funny that we have a speculative thread at the moment complaining about interoperability and too many differences between rolling stock and a thread suggesting that there isn't enough competition in train manufacturing.

It comes down essentially to what is a globally manufactured product and the desire to keep UK manufacturing and technology going.

Trains are made up of many different components with different supply chains. The Thameslink fleet may have been manufactured overseas but many components were manufactured in the UK. Aventras may be assembled in Derby but some of the manufacturing is done elsewhere including high value components.

What does happen is that a factory gets set up to build a certain type of stock and then there are multiple orders based on that platform. There wasn't really a need for Bombardier to design a UK market high speed train if it could fill its order books with regional and suburban units, and more importantly see an ongoing demand for such units.

 

[fgwrich]

I suspect the reason for Bombardier's "success" with the Aventra was in it's ability to sell a train with a lot of customisable features. Unfortunately, in doing that it's led to their own downfall and a large headache for Alstom in picking up the tab. I still remember an article written only a few years ago (in Modern Railways I think) at somewhere like Innotrans where they were talking to the bidders for what became the LUL NTFL contract. Siemens (the eventual winner) and Alstom both had a design prepared and ready to present it, Bombardier (in a JV with Hitachi) didn't and said they had drawn a blank piece of paper for it - I.e ready to sell something they didn't yet have.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The competition authorities (EU and UK) allowed Alstom to take over Bombardier, but they had to divest some manufacturing sites and train designs.
CAF has picked up some of those divested product lines.
The train manufacturing scene has Alstom, Siemens, Hitachi, CAF, Stadler and Talgo, who have all bid trains to the UK in the recent past.
All except Talgo have produced fleets for the UK, and all have some sort of manufacturing/assembly/maintenance capability in the UK (though generally not train design).
Nearly all major train components come from abroad, where there are specialist suppliers (bodyshells, traction packages, bogies, brakes, diesel power packs etc).
The manufacturing sector continues to reorganise itself, trying to pick a profitable mix.
In the background are the Chinese manufacturers who are keen to wade into the European and UK markets, and who are major suppliers overseas.

The DfT/TfL skewed the market in its procurement of IEP (800/801), Desiro City and Crossrail by placing large orders of particular designs, and subsequent smaller orders have been for follow-on versions of these designs.
The same is now likely to unfold with the HS2 design (Hitachi with Alstom as a subcontractor).
Stadler and CAF have won significant regional orders despite not being involved in the government's main procurements.
Siemens has won a major LU contract.

So generally, there is plenty of competition, though UK particularism means some designs are not competitive (eg Alstom's articulated trains).
What there isn't is a committed forward stream of orders to keep the manufacturers busy - far from it, we are in a new-train drought.
There have been no new DfT-approved train orders placed since covid (bar the HS2 outline deal), although the freight guys have placed some small orders for specialist locos.

 

[AlexNL]

As it was known that contract would replace most of our InterCity fleet that required replacing it isn’t surprising the losing bidders haven’t produced competing products as the orders were always going to be minimal.

That's not quite true, several competing IC designs exist in the market.

Siemens have the Desiro Verve concept, based on the Desiro City but uprated to 125mph and to be more InterCity-like.
Bombardier (now Alstom) have a 125mph Aventra design ready as well, which could even be used as a bi-mode.

And Stadler have an actual product with the Class 745. It's a 100mph design, but Stadler have made 200 km/h versions of FLIRTs before. Creating a 125mph FLIRT UK is probably done with relative ease.

 

[Sorcerer]

And Stadler have an actual product with the Class 745. It's a 100mph design, but Stadler have made 200 km/h versions of FLIRTs before. Creating a 125mph FLIRT UK is probably done with relative ease.

The SMILE (or Giruno as it's known by SBB) is a 250km/h design which is heavily derived from the FLIRT design, so I think there's at least two Stadler products that can be catered to a UK InterCity specification. Personally I'd love to see what a Stadler SMILE UK would look like even though I doubt it would look that much different to the Swiss design aside from being scaled down to UK loading gauge.

 

[Bertie the bus]

That's not quite true, several competing IC designs exist in the market.

Siemens have the Desiro Verve concept, based on the Desiro City but uprated to 125mph and to be more InterCity-like.
Bombardier (now Alstom) have a 125mph Aventra design ready as well, which could even be used as a bi-mode.

And Stadler have an actual product with the Class 745. It's a 100mph design, but Stadler have made 200 km/h versions of FLIRTs before. Creating a 125mph FLIRT UK is probably done with relative ease.

A design and a concept aren't a product.

 

[DanNCL]

In continental Europe it's more competitive than ever. In addition to the established European manufacturers such as Alstom, Siemens, CAF and Stadler, there's also Hitachi who seem to be making a success out of what was the troubled AnsaldoBreda, Skoda, the Polish manufacturers such as PESA and NEWAG, and CRRC have a couple of prototypes being tested in the EU now too.

Even in the UK it's quite competitive. Alstom, Siemens, CAF, Stadler and Hitachi all offer UK spec Suburban and Regional EMUs. All of those also offer UK spec Intercity stock, and all apart from Siemens offer DMUs or bi-mode units too. Others have attempted unsuccesfully to enter the UK market in the last few years too - Talgo on the HS2 contract, and both CRRC and Downer Rail on the Tyne & Wear Metro contract.

 

[D365]

A design and a concept aren't a product.

Precisely. Marketeers can talk all they want, but they need engineering capability and (more importantly) the pockets to turn the concept into a deliverable.

 

[Grumpy]

– not bad when not that many years ago it was repeatedly stated as fact that the British train market was so insignificant no manufacturer would ever produce a UK loading gauge DMU again.

Which merely repeated something that BR spouted in the mid/late 1970's

 

[Sorcerer]

Even in the UK it's quite competitive. Alstom, Siemens, CAF, Stadler and Hitachi all offer UK spec Suburban and Regional EMUs. All of those also offer UK spec Intercity stock, and all apart from Siemens offer DMUs or bi-mode units too.

But the thing is, how often do the contracts for specific trains end up going to the same manufacturers? If you have a choice of five manufacturers for UK spec intercity stock, why are we seeing 800s everywhere? GWR and LNER had to accept the 800/801s as part of the IEP in the franchise agreements, but TPE, Hull Trains, Lumo and Avanti all ended up with Hitachi. Surely AWC for example could've benefited from having Alstom give them a replacement fleet for the Super Voyagers and thus a uniform manufacturer to work with? I might be simplifying the latter a little bit but the question still remains as to why of all the available manufacturers that Hitachi is now the default choice?

Personally if I were running a manufacturing company I would not even try to offer a UK loading gauge intercity product because based on the current trend, Hitachi will win it again. Even for very high speed trains like the HS2 stock did Hitachi emerge as the victor even though Alstom has already produced a high speed train for the UK in the form of Eurostar trains. Siemens also have a very good track record with producing trains in the UK, including the new Eurostar fleet, though to be fair they were not built to UK loading gauge. The point is, despite the options, Hitachi pretty much has a monopoly on intercity trains in the UK market.

 

[DanNCL]

But the thing is, how often do the contracts for specific trains end up going to the same manufacturers? If you have a choice of five manufacturers for UK spec intercity stock, why are we seeing 800s everywhere? GWR and LNER had to accept the 800/801s as part of the IEP in the franchise agreements, but TPE, Hull Trains, Lumo and Avanti all ended up with Hitachi. Surely AWC for example could've benefited from having Alstom give them a replacement fleet for the Super Voyagers and thus a uniform manufacturer to work with? I might be simplifying the latter a little bit but the question still remains as to why of all the available manufacturers that Hitachi is now the default choice?

Personally if I were running a manufacturing company I would not even try to offer a UK loading gauge intercity product because based on the current trend, Hitachi will win it again. Even for very high speed trains like the HS2 stock did Hitachi emerge as the victor even though Alstom has already produced a high speed train for the UK in the form of Eurostar trains. Siemens also have a very good track record with producing trains in the UK, including the new Eurostar fleet, though to be fair they were not built to UK loading gauge. The point is, despite the options, Hitachi pretty much has a monopoly on intercity trains in the UK market.

The reason there's so many Hitachi orders for Intercity stock is ultimately down to them offering a bi-mode product, as opposed to the electric only products offered by Alstom, Siemens and CAF. Only Lumo and Avanti have ordered electric-only 80xs; Lumo was a small order that realistically had to be based at a Hitachi depot regardless who built the units, and the Avanti order was together with an order for bi-mode units.

The winning HS2 bid is a joint venture between Hitachi and Alstom, derived from the ETR1000 units in Italy. The design ultimately began as a Bombardier/AnsaldoBreda joint venture, but through the sales of both companies has become a Hitachi/Alstom joint venture.

 

[JonathanH]

The point is, despite the options, Hitachi pretty much has a monopoly on intercity trains in the UK market.

Having developed the IET product, with the development costs incurred in setting up production of the 800 and 801 fleets, a much keener price can be offered for the later 802 / 803 / 805 / 807 / 810 orders.

Hull Trains and Lumo needed something 'off the shelf' and proven for their small orders. GWR for the 802s got a keen price. TPE was effectively a follow on order.

With no current offering, how would Alstom have offered a fleet instead of the 805 / 807 fleets for what is a relatively small build?

 

[DanNCL]

With no current offering, how would Alstom have offered a fleet instead of the 805 / 807 fleets for what is a relatively small build?

Alstom have got a current offering as they offer a 125 mph end doors version the Aventra, but of course that was a Bombardier product at the time the 805/807 order was placed.

 

[Sorcerer]

The reason there's so many Hitachi orders for Intercity stock is ultimately down to them offering a bi-mode product, as opposed to the electric only products offered by Alstom, Siemens and CAF. Only Lumo and Avanti have ordered electric-only 80xs; Lumo was a small order that realistically had to be based at a Hitachi depot regardless who built the units, and the Avanti order was together with an order for bi-mode units.

The winning HS2 bid is a joint venture between Hitachi and Alstom, derived from the ETR1000 units in Italy. The design ultimately began as a Bombardier/AnsaldoBreda joint venture, but through the sales of both companies has become a Hitachi/Alstom joint venture.

Having developed the IET product, with the development costs incurred in setting up production of the 800 and 801 fleets, a much keener price can be offered for the later 802 / 803 / 805 / 807 / 810 orders.

Hull Trains and Lumo needed something 'off the shelf' and proven for their small orders. GWR for the 802s got a keen price. TPE was effectively a follow on order.

With no current offering, how would Alstom have offered a fleet instead of the 805 / 807 fleets for what is a relatively small build?

Well these are both very good reasonings and they do ultimately answer my question as to why Hitachi consistently gets chosen. However that also raises a new question - is it still a competitive market? Because with the 800s being a proven design choice compared to mere design concepts by the other manufacturers, then choosing Hitachi is a no-brainer. I could be wrong but I would personally consider a competitive market to be one where several actual options are available rather than just one proven design against potential options that haven't yet been proven. It's kind of the same with the Pendolino back in the day, because even though there were other tilting trains available such as the ones by Talgo and Siemens, they were mostly with their own internal market while the Pendolino had proven itself to work with several different specifications in different countries.

 

[JonathanH]

However that also raises a new question - is it still a competitive market? Because with the 800s being a proven design choice compared to mere design concepts by the other manufacturers, then choosing Hitachi is a no-brainer.

Is a competitive market one where the purchaser gets the keenest price, or one where they have the most options for something to meet their required specification?

 

[mcmad]

All bar the Avanti orders are all First group companies so presumably made sense to keep to a known brand. The 125mph offerings from the others are also really regional units with an increased max speed rather than true intercity units.

 

[DanNCL]

Well these are both very good reasonings and they do ultimately answer my question as to why Hitachi consistently gets chosen. However that also raises a new question - is it still a competitive market? Because with the 800s being a proven design choice compared to mere design concepts by the other manufacturers, then choosing Hitachi is a no-brainer. I could be wrong but I would personally consider a competitive market to be one where several actual options are available rather than just one proven design against potential options that haven't yet been proven. It's kind of the same with the Pendolino back in the day, because even though there were other tilting trains available such as the ones by Talgo and Siemens, they were mostly with their own internal market while the Pendolino had proven itself to work with several different specifications in different countries.

CAF and Stadler both have built their current long distance products for the UK (albeit only as a 100 mph version from Stadler), but CAF suffer the disadvantage of not offering a bi-mode product, and Stadler are known to be expensive, generally speaking Stadler only get chosen if the award is done based on quality more than cost, or if it's a unique order that's unlikely to result in repeat custom (for example Glasgow Subway).

Alstom still do have a monopoly on the active tilt market in Europe. Talgo's tilting trains are only passive tilt and whilst Talgo have a very innovative design it doesn't have the same speed advantage on classic lines vs a train with active tilt. Siemens' attempts at Tilting Trains can hardly be considered successful - the ICE TD units were chronically unreliable and withdrawn prematurely, whilst the ICE T units were a joint venture with Alstom using Pendolino techonology instead of Siemens' own technology. Hitachi do have tilting train designs, but have never offered them outside of Japan.

 

[43096]

All bar the Avanti orders are all First group companies so presumably made sense to keep to a known brand. The 125mph offerings from the others are also really regional units with an increased max speed rather than true intercity units.

Avanti is a WorstGroup company as well!

 

[Sorcerer]

Is a competitive market one where the purchaser gets the keenest price, or one where they have the most options for something to meet their required specification?

I would actually argue that both should be necessary for a competitive market.

CAF and Stadler both have built their current long distance products for the UK (albeit only as a 100 mph version from Stadler), but CAF suffer the disadvantage of not offering a bi-mode product, and Stadler are known to be expensive, generally speaking Stadler only get chosen if the award is done based on quality more than cost, or if it's a unique order that's unlikely to result in repeat custom (for example Glasgow Subway).

I think seeing as most intercity routes in the UK aren't fully electrified most operators won't have a choice other than Hitachi. In fact as far as I am aware only the WCML and ECML routes are fully electrified, and even then you also have to operate services over non-electrified routes, so ultimately your only option ends up being Hitachi since there is no other 125mph bi-mode unit actually on the market.

Alstom still do have a monopoly on the active tilt market in Europe. Talgo's tilting trains are only passive tilt and whilst Talgo have a very innovative design it doesn't have the same speed advantage on classic lines vs a train with active tilt. Siemens' attempts at Tilting Trains can hardly be considered successful - the ICE TD units were chronically unreliable and withdrawn prematurely, whilst the ICE T units were a joint venture with Alstom using Pendolino techonology instead of Siemens' own technology. Hitachi do have tilting train designs, but have never offered them outside of Japan.

Aside from the original InterCity West Coast bid I don't really think there is much of a market for tilting trains in the UK either way, so I'm not too surprised there isn't many options for them. I think the fact that TPE and Avanti chose to opt for non-tilting stock along with most intercity services moving to HS2 in the future pretty much proves this.

 

[Thirteen]

I find it interesting that TfL went from having Bombardier as their main train and tram supplier to going to other companies like Stadler with the Variobahns, CAF for the new DLR stock and Siemens for the NTfL deep level stock. I suspect when the CR4000s are due for replacement, they'll go with CAF or Stadler.

 

[43096]

I suspect when the CR4000s are due for replacement, they'll go with CAF or Stadler.

They can't go with Bombardier!

 

[JonathanH]

I suspect when the CR4000s are due for replacement, they'll go with CAF or Stadler.

Won't they just go out to tender and choose the best option, whoever that may be?

 

[Thirteen]

Won't they just go out to tender and choose the best option, whoever that may be?

True although I would imagine TfL will want rolling stock that already exists and in service rather than something that is custom made, the Variobahns IIRC were bought because Stadler had some surplus trams from Bergen that weren't needed although I recently saw a Jago Hazzard video where apparently TfL were close to buying CAF Urbos stock from Edinburgh but a deal couldn't be reached.

 

[JonathanH]

I recently saw a Jago Hazzard video where apparently TfL were close to buying CAF Urbos stock from Edinburgh but a deal couldn't be reached.

Wasn't that about them being offered the Edinburgh trams on a short term basis rather than buying them, when they were looking at the initial Stadler fleet?

https://www.londonreconnections.com/2011/tramlink-shortlist-announced-a-possible-tale-of-two-cities/

Most interesting though, is the presence on the shortlist of the City of Edinburgh/CAF.

Edinburgh’s ongoing Tram debacle is a fascinating one – a story which would be worthy of a post of its own were it not well outside our designated London beat. The short version is that thanks to rising costs and contractor disputes, Edinburgh currently have a perfectly decent contract for Trams with CAF from spain (and indeed have already taken receipt of units) but no lines on which to run them – a situation that is not likely to change until 2014 at the earliest (well beyond the original July 2011 suggested opening date).

The possibility of some of those trams finding their way to London, albeit on a temporary basis or for testing purposes, has been raised before. The presence of Edinburgh/CAF on the shortlist suggests that they are now resigned to the fact that, to corrupt a perfectly good saying, a Tram on the line is worth two in the Depot – possibly suggesting that their currently unusable tram stock be devolved to London whilst they look to pick up more units in the series later on.

Just how amenable TfL would be to that deal remains to be seen, and presumably depends on just how sweet a deal is being offered. The Edinburgh stock has undergone some modification to support the city’s geography and thus is, to a certain extent, untested stock – something TfL had presumably been looking to avoid. If the price-point were right, however, it could ultimately represent a good deal for TfL and the best of a bad situation for Edinburgh – for at least it would see their stock “blooded” before it debuted up north.

Whether TfL feel this would represent better value that going with the other shortlisted companies, however, remains to be seen.

 

[fgwrich]

Alstom have got a current offering as they offer a 125 mph end doors version the Aventra, but of course that was a Bombardier product at the time the 805/807 order was placed.

But, while they might offer one, they don’t exactly have a proven 125MPH Aventra product yet - Bombardier selling concepts has rather bought about the mess Alstom are in now.

I find it interesting that TfL went from having Bombardier as their main train and tram supplier to going to other companies like Stadler with the Variobahns, CAF for the new DLR stock and Siemens for the NTfL deep level stock. I suspect when the CR4000s are due for replacement, they'll go with CAF or Stadler.

I believe some of Bombardiers dominance came from Boris’s “Buy British” mantra. With Boris gone, and TfL fed up of the various let downs bought upon them by Derby (SSL Stock issues, 2009 stock issues, SSL resignalling etc), it opened the door to other builders. And with Siemens in the market for a new contract having been frozen out on the mainline (SWR, Greater Anglia, West Coast), as well as having a ready to roll concept with some components already tested, and Bombardier busy with the Aventra builds, they rather had the upper hand.

The Croydon one is interesting, particularly as they arrived during the Bombardier era. I believe they were chosen as Stadler was already part way through an order for Bergen, and with some delays to the tram line and a new to free up space and capacity at their factory, 3 were diverted to Croydon instead (the later 3 units were new builds specifically for Croydon plus 3 replacements for Bergen).

 

[Thirteen]

The Croydon one is interesting, particularly as they arrived during the Bombardier era. I believe they were chosen as Stadler was already part way through an order for Bergen, and with some delays to the tram line and a new to free up space and capacity at their factory, 3 were diverted to Croydon instead (the later 3 units were new builds specifically for Croydon plus 3 replacements for Bergen).

I know trams aren't the same as trains but I wonder iwhen tendering if the likes of TfL consider how similar stock has done elsewhere. The issues CAF has had with cracking on the Urbos 3 in both Sydney and the Midlands might give them second thoughts when deciding who to give the contract to.