IEP & Thameslink

[Class377/5]

I presume you don't realise that the development of the bogie for the Desiro City is Siemens playing catch up with Bombardier who have had a design for an inside framed bogie for years and are actually supplying a version of it to Siemens to fit to the latest version of the ICE.

But Siemens is investing in development of their products. Bombardier is just just using a BR design without the major development.

 

[HSTEd]

But Siemens is investing in development of their products. Bombardier is just just using a BR design without the major development.

Not any more.... they have finally designed there own lightweight bogie to replace the BREL design from the original Networkers.
Unfortunately I'm not sure it can be used with third rail equipment so that is going to be interesting.... (It lacks the conventional mounting point for the shoebeam).

 

[Class377/5]

Not any more.... they have finally designed there own lightweight bogie to replace the BREL design from the original Networkers.
Unfortunately I'm not sure it can be used with third rail equipment so that is going to be interesting.... (It lacks the conventional mounting point for the shoebeam).

That's my point, Siemens spend prior to make sure their products are better. Bombardier design slowly. An example of this is Siemens planning to have the first Desiro City prototype running around prior to contract to build them being signed. Bombardier on the other hand delayed the 172's by months due to a 'design fault' that didn't even exist. One company is forward thinking, the other reactionary.

 

[John55]

But Siemens is investing in development of their products. Bombardier is just just using a BR design without the major development.

The point I was making is that Bombardier has had a design available or some time which has allowed them to build and deliver trains into service with lightweight inside framed bogies. Siemens is only now in a position to follow suit.

The fact that Siemens is currently building development models of products which will form components of the Thameslink train doesn't mean the Siemens are a wonderful, generous, warm hearted company. It means they are developing their product range before launching production rather than at the same time with all the associated risks.

 

[WatcherZero]

Siemens didnt need to develop the lightweight bogie before because they just licensed Bombardiers German design, their submission for the Thameslink contract was that they would develop their own bogie with the Bombardier bogie as a backup and the Derby unions made a big fuss saying blah blah Siemens shouldnt have won because it didnt already have a design for the bogies when Bombardier could be using their German manufactured bogies instead. Well Siemens have done the work and finished the bogie design.

 

[ert47]

What would be the chances of a Bombardier/Siemens building trains that are (near enough) identical ala the BREL/MetroCammel 465s?

I'd say pretty slim, but y'know...

 

[Class377/5]

The point I was making is that Bombardier has had a design available or some time which has allowed them to build and deliver trains into service with lightweight inside framed bogies. Siemens is only now in a position to follow suit.

The fact that Siemens is currently building development models of products which will form components of the Thameslink train doesn't mean the Siemens are a wonderful, generous, warm hearted company. It means they are developing their product range before launching production rather than at the same time with all the associated risks.

Siemens aren't generous or warm hearted per say but practical. Doubt Bombardier would spend all this money developing a design prior.

Siemens didnt need to develop the lightweight bogie before because they just licensed Bombardiers German design, their submission for the Thameslink contract was that they would develop their own bogie with the Bombardier bogie as a backup and the Derby unions made a big fuss saying blah blah Siemens shouldnt have won because it didnt already have a design for the bogies when Bombardier could be using their German manufactured bogies instead. Well Siemens have done the work and finished the bogie design.

Funny how different the two have behaved since the contract has been awarded.

What would be the chances of a Bombardier/Siemens building trains that are (near enough) identical ala the BREL/MetroCammel 465s?

I'd say pretty slim, but y'know...

Not a chance. Standards have moved on so they can't look or be built like the networkers.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Not a chance. Standards have moved on so they can't look or be built like the networkers.

I think the question was more, if a very large order for a particular class of unit was placed, could Bombardier and Siemens both build units of the same class (or very, very similar) at the same time to get the massive fleet delivered faster than if only one company's factorys were building then?

 

[Class377/5]

I think the question was more, if a very large order for a particular class of unit was placed, could Bombardier and Siemens both build units of the same class (or very, very similar) at the same time to get the massive fleet delivered faster than if only one company's factorys were building then?

Doubtful as both use incompatable software to control the trains. If they did create new software together, this would be reflected in the overall price and it wouldn't be cheap.

 

[WatcherZero]

Funny how different the two have behaved since the contract has been awarded.

Exactly! Bombardier has never disputed the contract award or denied that it was awarded on quality rather than price. All the opposition has come from the RMT and the Derby local press with no support from the company their supposedly campaigning in favour of.

 

[Skimble19]

If the real thing is the same as the mock-ups and models that have been produced, then I am afraid you are out of luck: The middle section of the bodyside, between the two sets of doors, will only feature two windows, with blank bodyside left around the entrances in order to accomodate the sliding pocket doors as jopsuk describes.

Great.. Hopefully the 365s will be staying for the remaining GN route services, and these new units will solely be used on the ones going over to thameslink.

 

[Class377/5]

Exactly! Bombardier has never disputed the contract award or denied that it was awarded on quality rather than price. All the opposition has come from the RMT and the Derby local press with no support from the company their supposedly campaigning in favour of.

Very true. It's almost as if Bombardier has lost the will to keep Derby open. It's let the RMT secure the 377/6 contract by bully tactics (well what else do you expect?).

Great.. Hopefully the 365s will be staying for the remaining GN route services, and these new units will solely be used on the ones going over to thameslink.

No-one can say for sure as the new Thameslink bidders are asked to provide their plans over the fleet post the TLP programme. However that said, unlikely they will go as they do what's needed and they aren't bad units at all really.

 

[DownSouth]

Doubtful as both use incompatable software to control the trains. If they did create new software together, this would be reflected in the overall price and it wouldn't be cheap.

Software wouldn't be an issue if you had Bombardier license-building the Siemens design, the electronic modules would simply be supplied by Siemens for the whole lot.

There are four far bigger questions in my opinion...
1. whether having a competitor assembling their units would be profitable for Siemens.
2. whether Siemens want to allow their reputation to be left in the hands of a competitor, probably not given that build quality and their more advanced construction techniques were the cornerstone of the bid.
3. whether it would compromise intellectual property or trade secrets.
4. whether it would be profitable to have two sets of the tooling required in different locations and two sets of staff trained on how to get the job done, probably not since a production line's efficiency increases as the number of units built increases.

 

[HSTEd]

Surely if we were going to do that we would want Turbostar/Electronics type electronics in any flat front multiple unit... rather than more desiros....

Siemens has the problem of apparently not being able to build a train that is not a bank vault on wheels.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Software wouldn't be an issue if you had Bombardier license-building the Siemens design, the electronic modules would simply be supplied by Siemens for the whole lot.

There are four far bigger questions in my opinion...
1. whether having a competitor assembling their units would be profitable for Siemens.
2. whether Siemens want to allow their reputation to be left in the hands of a competitor, probably not given that build quality and their more advanced construction techniques were the cornerstone of the bid.
3. whether it would compromise intellectual property or trade secrets.
4. whether it would be profitable to have two sets of the tooling required in different locations and two sets of staff trained on how to get the job done, probably not since a production line's efficiency increases as the number of units built increases.

People forget that the reserve bidder for IEP is a Bombardier/Siemens joint bid.
So they must have had plans to cooperate to build a fleet of new trains together.
How much of this work would have been in the UK I have no idea.

 

[jon0844]

I am certainly looking forward to seing what Seimens have up their sleeve. Too be honest could you see Bombardier doing this if the contract wasn't signed.

They'd struggle to come up with a working train even after the contract has been signed.

 

[Class377/5]

Software wouldn't be an issue if you had Bombardier license-building the Siemens design, the electronic modules would simply be supplied by Siemens for the whole lot.

There are four far bigger questions in my opinion...
1. whether having a competitor assembling their units would be profitable for Siemens.
2. whether Siemens want to allow their reputation to be left in the hands of a competitor, probably not given that build quality and their more advanced construction techniques were the cornerstone of the bid.
3. whether it would compromise intellectual property or trade secrets.
4. whether it would be profitable to have two sets of the tooling required in different locations and two sets of staff trained on how to get the job done, probably not since a production line's efficiency increases as the number of units built increases.

1) Possibily but Siemens likes to control everything they do as they pride themselves on their products and the support they give to it.
2) Are you asking about the Thameslink bid or in general here?
3) Maybe but they have worked together before.
4) Doubtful having two places doing the same would be profitable, especially when any UK built part would likely be shipped to Germany so all units could be properly tested on the same test track.

They'd struggle to come up with a working train even after the contract has been signed.

Comparing the 350/3 & /4 order vs the 377/6 order should prove interesting as they are both based on existing designs tho the 350 order has got more time for less carriages. Wonder who will have the first unit ready?

 

[jon0844]

2. whether Siemens want to allow their reputation to be left in the hands of a competitor, probably not given that build quality and their more advanced construction techniques were the cornerstone of the bid.

And the inevitable passing of the buck when there are problems later on, with each company blaming the other. Not good for the poor engineers who will be expected to maintain the stock later on.

 

[Pumbaa]

In all this excitement about Canada and Germany playing nicely with each other, in an attempt to push IEP numbers up desperately the DafT have proposed sticking 3rd rail gear in it too and giving it to the south of the Thames... The answer they got from Agility wasn't exactly what they wanted to hear...

No really. You couldn't make it up.

Expect IEP close to be delayed once again as the numbers *still* don't work.

 

[anthony263]

In all this excitement about Canada and Germany playing nicely with each other, in an attempt to push IEP numbers up desperately the DafT have proposed sticking 3rd rail gear in it too and giving it to the south of the Thames... The answer they got from Agility wasn't exactly what they wanted to hear...

No really. You couldn't make it up.

Expect IEP close to be delayed once again as the numbers *still* don't work.

I really wish they would just knock this on the head and cancel IEP and look at an alternative.

Or maybe speak to the other bider for IEP I am sure the RMT etc would be pleased for jobs at Derby and lets face I doubt they could come up with something thats worse than what Hitachi are offering.


Speaking of Hitachi I am surprised with the messing around the economic crisis they dont just say thats it we are pulling the plug.

That said maybe they should just let the bidders for the GW and east coast franchises come up with their proposals especially since I like what was said about Alstom's offering.

 

[DownSouth]

People forget that the reserve bidder for IEP is a Bombardier/Siemens joint bid.
So they must have had plans to cooperate to build a fleet of new trains together.
How much of this work would have been in the UK I have no idea.

2) Are you asking about the Thameslink bid or in general here?
3) Maybe but they have worked together before.

I am specifically talking about the Thameslink units. As far as I'm aware, the winning Siemens bid was done on the basis of them and their regular suppliers doing the whole thing, not on hiving off half of it to a competitor at some later date.

A joint bid that is conceived as such from the start is a completely different issue.

 

[sprinterguy]

Just to summarise, as I can't see that it's been done in this thread elsewhere, the revised proposed order of IEP trains as of June 2012, as has been laid out in the Great Western and East Coast franchise consultations, has shown the following weekday unit requirement for IEP trains(The information contained in the consultations has been worded to suggest that the figures shown are for the number of units required in service on a weekday, rather than the full fleet size):

Great Western
Electric 8-car: 11 diagrams
Bi-mode 8-car: 12 diagrams
Bi-mode 5-car: 26 diagrams
Total: 49 diagrams

Delivery of the new trains and entry into service is expected to take place starting in early 2017, with the full fleet ready for service by early 2018. The first timetable period that will be able to exploit the performance of the new trains will be May 2018.

East Coast
Bi-mode 9-car: 10 diagrams
Electric 5-car: 10 diagrams
Bi-mode 5-car: 8 diagrams
Total: 28 diagrams

Introduction is expected from 2018, with the full fleet deployed from the start of the May 2019 timetable change.

This gives a total fleet size of:
11 Electric full-length sets (8-car) = 88 carriages
22 Bi-mode full length sets (8 and 9-car) = 186 carriages
10 Electric half-length sets (5-car) = 50 carriages
34 Bi-mode half-length sets (5-car) = 170 carriages

TOTAL = 494 carriages

Plus presumably some sort of maintenance contingent, so perhaps there might be a total of 30 Bi-mode 5-car sets on Great Western and 10 with East Coast.

It is expected that a 27.5 year contract will be signed with the Train Service Provider (Agility Trains) to provide maintenance facilities and servicing arrangements for the IEP fleets.

 

[HSTEd]

Are those 5 car electric sets the commuter ones?

 

[Bridge189]

Yes the 5 coach electrics are the commuter ones. ECML intercity is the bi-modes. The 9 coach expected to replace all current HST diagrams and the smaller 5 coach ones for new markets e.g. Harrogate and Lincoln. That's what I've been told anyways.

I can still see it being shelved.

 

[sprinterguy]

Yes the 5 coach electrics are the commuter ones. ECML intercity is the bi-modes. The 9 coach expected to replace all current HST diagrams and the smaller 5 coach ones for new markets e.g. Harrogate and Lincoln. That's what I've been told anyways.

I can still see it being shelved.

Ten diagrams is expected to be sufficient to cover the proposed Cambridge operations? There is no mention made in the EC franchise consultation of this being the proposed use for the 5-car electric sets. I would have thought that they would be utilised to allow a better match of capacity to demand, operating in either 5 or 10-car formations with either other electric sets or the bi-mode sets, with splitting of trains at the limit of electrification.

 

[HSTEd]

Ten diagrams is expected to be sufficient to cover the proposed Cambridge operations? There is no mention made in the EC franchise consultation of this being the proposed use for the 5-car electric sets. I would have thought that they would be utilised to allow a better match of capacity to demand, operating in either 5 or 10-car formations with either other electric sets or the bi-mode sets, with splitting of trains at the limit of electrification.

East Coast is not supposed to be recieving any electric IEPs at all based on all previous iterations of the proposals.
The 5-car electric IEPs were always for the Cambridge flyer operations.
And I think that ten trains might even be excessive since they will only ever operate in, at most, pairs.

Hourly to Cambridge only takes two formations with the King's Lynn extensions and spares taking the rest.

 

[Bridge189]

I was told the bi-mode five coach version was defiantly for ECML intercity as well as the 9 coach.

 

[northwichcat]

I was told the bi-mode five coach version was defiantly for ECML intercity as well as the 9 coach.

You are right. 5 car bi-mode IEP has been proposed as HST replacement for East Coast franchised services, possibly running in pairs on busy sections e.g. a Hull/Harrogate portion working or a 10 car formation splitting at Edinburgh with 5 cars continuing northbound.

 

[jopsuk]

East Coast is not supposed to be recieving any electric IEPs at all based on all previous iterations of the proposals.
The 5-car electric IEPs were always for the Cambridge flyer operations.
And I think that ten trains might even be excessive since they will only ever operate in, at most, pairs.

Hourly to Cambridge only takes two formations with the King's Lynn extensions and spares taking the rest.

But Cambridge Express is half hourly with hourly Kings Lynn extension.

There will also be hell to pay if a 10-car, 260m long 2x5 IEP has less seats than a 12-car, 240m long 365
(plus there's not another 20m of length of Platofrm 1 at Cambridge- this may be a problem)
They'll also have to spend a heck of a lot of time off-peak in 2x5 formation, given then number of (packed) 2x4 365 services off peak.

 

[Class377/5]

Looks like the possibility of seeing a Desiro City prototype is not happening this week (, it was thought Suemens was going to show a unit off this week) until after the contract has been signed.