Second hint from DfT at new DMUs being procured

[northwichcat]

A few weeks back Claire Perry reportedly told a rail magazine journalist that DfT were looking at an option of a new DMU order.

Yesterday, Julie Mills, rail project director at DfT seemed to confirm that DfT are in talks with train manufacturers with regard to new DMUs: "Ms Mills accepted that more diesels were needed and revealed that the DfT was starting to sound out manufactures."http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/ne..._firm_replaces_hated_Pacer_trains/?ref=twtrec

Julie Mills, rail project director at the Department for Transport (DfT), told a seminar on the future of the North's rail network this evening (Wednesday, November 19) that a consultation on the two franchises had received a "phenomenal" 20,000 responses.

She said the key messages taken on board by DfT was that the network had a vital social role to play - and that people wanted rid of the Pacer trains used on many Northern Rail routes.

She said the invitation to tender documents due to be sent out to short-listed firms next month would ask for "innovative and exciting" changes.

Ms Mills added that the new Northern franchisee would be expected to put forward plans to replace the Pacers, with both contractors expected to tackle overcrowding and improve the quality of service to passengers.

So it seems DfT have accepted electrification cannot deal with both extra growth and replacement of life expired diesel trains at it's current rate, something most of us have realised for a long time.

 

[WatcherZero]

They are only sounding them out rather than in talks. Issue is they may only want a small one time order of say 40 trains, the manufacturers are reluctant to make the investment in designing a product with little chance of follow on orders. So if the Government did decide to make an order it would likely have to be a design and supply order covering R&D costs similar to the IEP rather than a straight rolling stock unit order.

 

[PHILIPE]

If DaFT had appreciated this when people were shouting out, we might have some in service by now.

 

[northwichcat]

They are only sounding them out rather than in talks. Issue is they may only want a small one time order of say 40 trains

If DfT think logically then it's not just Pacer replacement. There's units needed to cover accessibility refurbishments over the next 5 years, as well as replacing the 150s and 153s beyond that, which is over 300 diesel trains to replace in the next 10 years. Then in the 2024-2029 CP the 156s, 158s and 159s and so on. Huge numbers of DMUs to replace every 5 years until around 2040, so an order of 100+ versatile DMUs isn't a stupid idea.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If DaFT had appreciated this when people were shouting out, we might have some in service by now.

Also without the Coalition's spending reviews electrification would be have happened 12 months sooner and Thameslink trains would have happened around 24 months sooner.

 

[mtbox]

More hot air from our wonderfully successful coalition.

They have absolutely no intention whatsoever of replacing the heaps of junk bouncing round the Northern network.

With the money Northern have paid out to shareholders the last few years, we could have new trains on our routes by now.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

What about all those "wonderfully constructed" postings that we have seen on this website in past times showing that cascaded DMU stock in CP6/7/8/9/10 and onwards would be more than sufficient to meet any future DMU needs WITHOUT any recourse to a new order of any size being placed....

 

[Anchorman_02]

More hot air from our wonderfully successful coalition.

They have absolutely no intention whatsoever of replacing the heaps of junk bouncing round the Northern network.

With the money Northern have paid out to shareholders the last few years, we could have new trains on our routes by now.

Yes and no operator to run them. It's business and is no different to any other business that gets funding from shareholders. Would you put your money in the building society if you didn't get anything back?

 

[northwichcat]

What about all those "wonderfully constructed" postings that we have seen on this website in past times showing that cascaded DMU stock in CP6/7/8/9/10 and onwards would be more than sufficient to meet any future DMU needs WITHOUT any recourse to a new order of any size being placed....

There was a key flaw in many of those is they assumed 142s would be replaced by 319s alone. They also didn't allow for other operators like Chiltern and Southern wanting additional diesel trains.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Yes and no operator to run them. It's business and is no different to any other business that gets funding from shareholders. Would you put your money in the building society if you didn't get anything back?

I have a feeling that there are some on this website who have no knowledge whatsoever how shareholding works. They totally ignore the fact that it needs the input of finance to purchase shareholdings in the first place.

I like your comment about building society accounts, as a way to get your message across.

 

[caliwag]

If they are 'drawing up' something can they at least make sure the windows and seats line up (which I note still doesn't happen with the new HS2 trains.) and barely happened at all with Pacers. How difficult can that really be?

 

[northwichcat]

I like your comment about building society accounts, as a way to get your message across.

Some people do use Premium Bonds where the interest rate is 0% and there's a chance you might win a cash prize of between £25 and £1,000,000.

Would spread betting be a suitable way of getting private companies to invest?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If they are 'drawing up' something can they at least make sure the windows and seats line up (which I note still doesn't happen with the new HS2 trains.) and barely happened at all with Pacers. How difficult can that really be?

I noticed on Great Continental Railway Journeys last week how the Italian Pendolinos manage to have seats lined up with windows much better than on the Virgin Pendolinos.

 

[AM9]

Some people do use Premium Bonds where the interest rate is 0% and there's a chance you might win a cash prize of between £25 and £1,000,000.

NS&I say that all bondholders share a prize fund that is set at 1.35%. It's somewhere near 2% compared with taxable interest rates. Your cash in PBs isn't at risk. At the moment, it's not a bad place to put money after ISAs.

I noticed on Great Continental Railway Journeys last week how the Italian Pendolinos manage to have seats lined up with windows much better than on the Virgin Pendolinos.

The fundamental difference between UK and Italian railways is that Trenitalia is a government owned outfit so there is no profit to be creamed off. In that setup, fares can be less than the most expensive in Europe and rolling stock designed for comfort and even frippery such as unobstructed views from every window.

 

[Wolfie]

The fundamental difference between UK and Italian railways is that Trenitalia is a government owned outfit so there is no profit to be creamed off. In that setup, fares can be less than the most expensive in Europe and rolling stock designed for comfort and even frippery such as unobstructed views from every window.

Trenitalia is also losing money hand over fist, something that is not sustainable given the state of Italy's finances.....

 

[Mikey C]

Trenitalia is also losing money hand over fist, something that is not sustainable given the state of Italy's finances.....

I've also been surprised at how infrequent many of their services are...

On the DMU question, I presume that it'll be winner takes all, that we'll end up with one type of compliant train which will effectively be the only one available for future bids.

 

[northwichcat]

On the DMU question, I presume that it'll be winner takes all, that we'll end up with one type of compliant train which will effectively be the only one available for future bids.

Just seen a post elsewhere where someone's claimed Bombardier are looking whether they can produce a DEMU version of a 37x.

 

[BananaRepublic]

They are only sounding them out rather than in talks. Issue is they may only want a small one time order of say 40 trains, the manufacturers are reluctant to make the investment in designing a product with little chance of follow on orders. So if the Government did decide to make an order it would likely have to be a design and supply order covering R&D costs similar to the IEP rather than a straight rolling stock unit order.

If DaFT had appreciated this when people were shouting out, we might have some in service by now.

The programme for new DMU's to replace the Pacers, 150's etc, was initiated in the late "noughts"; but was cancelled once the U-turn on electrification was made.

The problem with trying to order new diesels, from a financial point of view, is no financier would stump up the cash when there was little or no assurance that those new trains would be in service long enough to pay back the investment.

The prospect of "creeping" electrification, effectively kills stone dead the likelihood of any finance being risked on any DMU's, unless someone guarantees the deal. The only someone who could do that is the government.
The Dft had also fallen out of love with the ROSCOs by that time and wanted to look at another way of providing trains to cut the ROSCOs out of any deal.

That's why the DfT set up the programme to procure 202 new DMUs, back in 2009.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/purchase.pdf

They got as far as setting up a government owned company, Diesel Trains Ltd, who would manage the procurement and finance arrangements to allow these new DMU's to be specified and ordered.

A combination of the new electrification programme being announced and the tightening of EU emissions regulations for diesel trains, led to the quiet cancellation of this programme around the time of the IEP order for Hitachi Super Express Trains being announced.

I'm quite surprised to see the idea being revived, nearly 5 years on.

 

[Kettledrum]

Just seen a post elsewhere where someone's claimed Bombardier are looking whether they can produce a DEMU version of a 37x.

what would be really clever, is if it was a DEMU that could be converted to electric power by the insertion of a pantograph coach in the future.

I know there were specific reasons why it didn't work for the class 222s, but if it's designed with this spec in mind from the start, together with the appropriate options in the contract, then it would help future proof the investments.

 

[Bletchleyite]

what would be really clever, is if it was a DEMU that could be converted to electric power by the insertion of a pantograph coach in the future.

Would be a good idea to have a pantograph well, fixings etc, as some of the third rail only South East EMUs have, and somewhere to bolt the transformer. Or bi-mode, even?

Neil

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

They are only sounding them out rather than in talks. Issue is they may only want a small one time order of say 40 trains, the manufacturers are reluctant to make the investment in designing a product with little chance of follow on orders. So if the Government did decide to make an order it would likely have to be a design and supply order covering R&D costs similar to the IEP rather than a straight rolling stock unit order.

Indeed. This version of DfT has just 6 months of office left, and no rolling stock orders for the north are going to be placed for at least a year.
They are just talking about what goes into the ITT next month, and putting Pacer replacement "in play" as part of the "innovative and exciting" rolling stock plans expected from the bidders.
The District line stock reconfiguration mashup idea is probably one such scheme. Tram trains might be another.
I think we are still a long way from an order for new-build DMUs.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Just seen a post elsewhere where someone's claimed Bombardier are looking whether they can produce a DEMU version of a 37x.

Surely that would be a 170/171 or better still a 172 if based on a 377 ?. OK I suppose it would have to be based on the 377/6 0r /7 or 379 or 387 (if those four are all the same) in which case it depends how many of the differences are due to the traction package only. Windows is the only real difference I can think of.

 

[Kneedown]

Surely that would be a 170/171 or better still a 172 if based on a 377 ?. OK I suppose it would have to be based on the 377/6 0r /7 or 379 or 387 (if those four are all the same) in which case it depends how many of the differences are due to the traction package only. Windows is the only real difference I can think of.

If it's a DEMU version it would probably be numbered in the 27X series, as 1 prefix's tend to refer to DMMU's.

 

[rebmcr]

If they are 'drawing up' something can they at least make sure the windows and seats line up (which I note still doesn't happen with the new HS2 trains.) and barely happened at all with Pacers. How difficult can that really be?

Pretty difficult bordering on impossible, considering there's no such thing as a HS2 train yet, not even a single outline, artist's impression, nor specification.

 

[edwin_m]

Didn't Bombardier announce a bi-mode in the Aventra range? If they have then no doubt their competitors could offer one too, and it's just a case of ordering the bi-mode either "as is" or without the electric bits but with provision to add them later.

 

[Rapidash]

Considering a fair chunk of the metro-type DMU's will be hitting 30 years old in the not so distant future (bit like myself!) and the numbers on lines that won't be leccified for whatever reasons are substantial, then it would seem reasonable for the DFT to sound out the prices a new gen of Diesels. The oldies are already breaking down more often as is.

And it would have been reasonable for them to have done it ages ago too

 

[NotATrainspott]

If these rumours are true I imagine the only thing that could happen would be that standard EMUs of Aventra or AT200 form would be procured with a bog-standard diesel genset taking up space in the passenger cabin and using the window spaces for ventilation. Losing half or a third of a 23m carriage in a three car set is no great deal when the alternative is to be unable to grow passenger numbers at all in the short term. There is a real risk that if rail capacity is not available when various Northern growth packages come through, that growth could be prematurely limited while making conditions for passengers even worse than today.

 

[Chris125]

Didn't Bombardier announce a bi-mode in the Aventra range? If they have then no doubt their competitors could offer one too, and it's just a case of ordering the bi-mode either "as is" or without the electric bits but with provision to add them later.

I recall a mention of battery power, but not diesel engines which I'm sure would've received plenty of attention.

If anything a DMU shortfall in the medium term has become even less likely in recent months, now that Abellio have demonstrated a case for shorter, refurbished HSTs replacing modern DMUs on longer distance routes.

Chris

 

[Mikey C]

I recall a mention of battery power, but not diesel engines which I'm sure would've received plenty of attention.

If anything a DMU shortfall in the medium term has become even less likely in recent months, now that Abellio have demonstrated a case for shorter, refurbished HSTs replacing modern DMUs on longer distance routes.

Chris

Maybe the problem is the wrong sort of diesel train? There will 222s displaced by MML electrification and Voyagers displaced from Cross country, but these aren't the sorts of trains to run on quiet branch lines, and even if you use them to displace Sprinters to replace Pacers, the 150s etc will also need replacing soon

 

[G_A_C_C_C]

"but these aren't the sorts of trains to run on quiet branch lines"

There's nothing quiet about a branch line with a Pacer on it!

 

[Class377/5]

Bombardier is in talks with someone about making new DMUs using the new Electrostar bodyshell rather than Aventra units.

 

[paul1609]

Why not just refurbish the existing Pacer Units for another 15 years service? if you removed the toilets most of the disability issues just go away.
Services up to 75 minutes in the South East are deemed not to need them (455)even on semi fast inter conurbations services (313/2) why are toilets needed for short commuter hops in the North?
Maybe there is even scope for a new generation of Pacer bus based trains for many of the low revenue northern services?