London tram replacement updates

[Snow1964]

Some new information on tram fleet replacement in the papers for next weeks TfL Board meeting

https://board.tfl.gov.uk/documents/s26290/Appendix%201%20Delivering%20the%20Mayors%20Transport%20Strategy%20202526%20Draft.pdf

Per section 4.1.3 (page 79)

Purchasing (says purchasing, not leasing) 24 new trams
Procurement already under way
Funding was agreed in 2025
Contract award will be February 2027 (no idea why they have estimated another 9 months time)
Expected to enter service in early 2030s

I might be misreading this, but if there is a 3+ year delay between placing an order and getting trams, it suggests to me they are not buying an off the shelf design used in other cities and currently in production.

Also suggests current fleet have got to keep going for at least 5 years based on this TfL Board timescale

There were originally 24 Bombardier CR4000 trams built 1998-1999, although one has been withdrawn after a series accident.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I might be misreading this, but if there is a 3+ year delay between placing an order and getting trams, it suggests to me they are not buying an off the shelf design used in other cities and currently in production.

It's possible that the manufacturers have big enough order books at present that 3 years is the likely lead time?

 

[bluegoblin7]

Yes, three years isn't particularly unusual for modern light rail vehicles. The nature of tramways also means that there isn't really an 'off the shelf' design! There are different 'platforms' but these are highly customisable by the operator, with most tramways needing some level of customisation. The previous London Tram procurement (the Variotrams) was 'non-standard' in so much as prioritising a speedy delivery, and indeed considered options to lease vehicles. In the end it was able to take advantage of excess capacity by diverting already-built vehicles for Bergen, which did mean a level of compromise and a number of infrastructure modifications having to be made.

 

[Nym]

And even then the Ex. Bergen trams are wired completely differently because they were converted from single ended to double ended before delivery. The first is perticularly different having essentially being complete before the 2nd cab was fitted

 

[bb21]

Yes, three years isn't particularly unusual for modern light rail vehicles. The nature of tramways also means that there isn't really an 'off the shelf' design! There are different 'platforms' but these are highly customisable by the operator, with most tramways needing some level of customisation. The previous London Tram procurement (the Variotrams) was 'non-standard' in so much as prioritising a speedy delivery, and indeed considered options to lease vehicles. In the end it was able to take advantage of excess capacity by diverting already-built vehicles for Bergen, which did mean a level of compromise and a number of infrastructure modifications having to be made.

... and as it turned out, were not suitable for all routes on the network.

I am surprised they did not elect to replace the whole fleet, given there are only 12 Variobahns and the oldest ones are now approaching 15 years of age, which might find a home elsewhere in contentinental Europe. By the time they are life-expired, you will need another small order to replace them.

 

[bluegoblin7]

... and as it turned out, were not suitable for all routes on the network.

I am surprised they did not elect to replace the whole fleet, given there are only 12 Variobahns and the oldest ones are now approaching 15 years of age, which might find a home elsewhere in contentinental Europe. By the time they are life-expired, you will need another small order to replace them.

Absolutely - that was something I found quite surprising with this announcement. Given that the Varios were also procured for what is generally accepted as a 'very good price', even the parts and training homogeny from one fleet would generate significant savings. Alas, it is probably a continued sign of the current TfL financial position.

 

[bb21]

Absolutely - that was something I found quite surprising with this announcement. Given that the Varios were also procured for what is generally accepted as a 'very good price', even the parts and training homogeny from one fleet would generate significant savings. Alas, it is probably a continued sign of the current TfL financial position.

Considering the financial argument, I always wondered if we really needed 36 trams for the current operation. We seem to have coped with the loss of 2551 quite well, so 35 would presumably work.

New Addington also doesn't really need 8tph as they cart fresh air most of the time during the day, and running card 46 is often missing when there is a shortage (being the shortest diagram of the day), sometimes with 42 or worse, 48, also missing, seemingly without causing any major disruption. When that happens, they rarely make an effort to push the previous service back or bring the next service forward by a couple of minutes to even things out. I would far prefer a reliable 10-minute headway as opposed to a lop-sided 8-minute/15-minute gap without knowing when you fall into that big gap. If they can go with a design more similar to the Variobahn, it should not cause too much capacity loss considering how the ends of the CR4000 really aren't friendly to standees. That would require 6 trams for the route vice the current 8.

I also came across this interesting timetable poster at Elmers End the other day, which looked fairly new to me. What is interesting is that running card 14 and 19 appear missing on weekdays, and both 13 and 18 are missing on Saturdays (see the random gaps in departures during the day). That would suggest 8 trams would be sufficient for demand vice the current 10.

So really if cost is a constraint, presumably as a minimum 31 trams (24 + 7/8 options) could be a feasible fleet size, that is assuming no similar reduction had been made on the Beckenham route. Coupled with likely a bigger discount on the order, reduced maintenance/training costs of a uniform fleet, etc, it may not cost much more than an order of 24, and definitely less than two separate orders.

 

[Snow1964]

... and as it turned out, were not suitable for all routes on the network.

I am surprised they did not elect to replace the whole fleet, given there are only 12 Variobahns and the oldest ones are now approaching 15 years of age, which might find a home elsewhere in contentinental Europe. By the time they are life-expired, you will need another small order to replace them.

Had they been replaced as well, would be about getting on for 20 years old by time replacements arrive.

Of course 20+ years ago, London buses would be sold to a provincial operator for further use, but as no smaller UK city is building a tramway, can't really sell them on for use elsewhere in UK, which is a shame (or a failure of joined up infrastructure investment in UK)

 

[bb21]

Had they been replaced as well, would be about getting on for 20 years old by time replacements arrive.

Of course 20+ years ago, London buses would be sold to a provincial operator for further use, but as no smaller UK city is building a tramway, can't really sell them on for use elsewhere in UK, which is a shame (or a failure of joined up infrastructure investment in UK)

They could always donate them to Ukraine to help with their rebuild if all else fails, and will be a good PR exercise.

 

[bluegoblin7]

Had they been replaced as well, would be about getting on for 20 years old by time replacements arrive.

Of course 20+ years ago, London buses would be sold to a provincial operator for further use, but as no smaller UK city is building a tramway, can't really sell them on for use elsewhere in UK, which is a shame (or a failure of joined up infrastructure investment in UK)

Given some of the current woes of the Blackpool fleet, maybe they could be redistributed to the north.

 

[Thirteen]

It'll be interesting to see who gets the contract for the new fleet. I can't imagine CAF will get it after the debacle of the B23s.

Personally I think it should be either the Alstom Citadis line or the Stadler Tramlink.

 

[Barry K]

Deleted

 

[Recessio]

It'll be interesting to see who gets the contract for the new fleet. I can't imagine CAF will get it after the debacle of the B23s.

Personally I think it should be either the Alstom Citadis line or the Stadler Tramlink.

Could CAF actually be blocked from the tender over the B23? Because if not, do TfL have to consider all tenders fairly and choose the cheapest (or in CAF's, the "cheapest as f...") option, which could very well be CAF even if TfL wouldn't trust them after the DLR?

 

[Nym]

Could CAF actually be blocked from the tender over the B23? Because if not, do TfL have to consider all tenders fairly and choose the cheapest (or in CAF's, the "cheapest as f...") option, which could very well be CAF even if TfL wouldn't trust them after the DLR?

One can ensure that the technical evaluation includes all of the required key factors so long as they are declared at the start of the tender.

Also known as. So long as they know what the want at the beginning of the tender process. For TfL, this can be somewhat challenging.

 

[Snow1964]

Could CAF actually be blocked from the tender over the B23? Because if not, do TfL have to consider all tenders fairly and choose the cheapest (or in CAF's, the "cheapest as f...") option, which could very well be CAF even if TfL wouldn't trust them after the DLR?

Not sure if they can be blocked unless there is an open dispute. But TfL did ask CAF to delay the DLR trains, and it is not clear to me if CAF are at fault, or if TfL misunderstood its infrastructure, and spec requested was met, which they then discovered wasn't specified correctly when wet.

Per TfL Board minutes the details are in the non public part 2, however reading between the lines seems to suggest TfL are picking up modification costs and paying CAF to store the trains, both of which are unbudgeted. That suggests to me, CAF delivered what was asked.

 

[Geogregor]

Not sure if they can be blocked unless there is an open dispute. But TfL did ask CAF to delay the DLR trains, and it is not clear to me if CAF are at fault, or if TfL misunderstood its infrastructure, and spec requested was met, which they then discovered wasn't specified correctly when wet.

Per TfL Board minutes the details are in the non public part 2, however reading between the lines seems to suggest TfL are picking up modification costs and paying CAF to store the trains, both of which are unbudgeted. That suggests to me, CAF delivered what was asked.

Yes, it looks that the mess is on the TfL side.

 

[Snow1964]

Some new info on timescale in latest papers for TfL Board committee meeting next Wednesday 1st July, per section 8.5.2

The Tram Replacement Rolling Stock Programme extending to 2031/32.

https://board.tfl.gov.uk/documents/s26563/pic-20260701-item05-part%201-IPR.pdf