UK Train Building Future Under Threat? (A Telegraph Article)

[Mikey C]

Ultimately the political class wants it both ways.

They want a "competitive" market in rolling stock procurement, but they also want the vast majority of UK rolling stock "built" in the UK.

This results in the endless crises like the one that triggered this thread.

It has to chose one or the other, both is not sustainable.

And we have a different loading gauge to mainland Europe, making us an uncompetitive place to make "European gauge" trains, leaving our factories very dependant on British orders.

 

[Thirteen]

The Goole factory for NTfL is probably going to have regular work since it's likely that once TfL are in a better financial position, they'll be upgrading all of the deep level tube stock for the next 10-15 years.

 

[JonathanH]

The Goole factory for NTfL is probably going to have regular work since it's likely that once TfL are in a better financial position, they'll be upgrading all of the deep level tube stock for the next 10-15 years.

When are TfL going to be in a better financial position? Does it involve more funding from central government?

 

[Meerkat]

When are TfL going to be in a better financial position? Does it involve more funding from central government?

The tube trains can’t run forever. I can’t imagine someone else can develop and build an alternative cheaper than Siemens pumping out more of the same.
If Tfl need them and can’t afford them will the government dare lose London voters by not helping out, and lose northern voters by letting a northern factory close.

 

[zwk500]

When are TfL going to be in a better financial position? Does it involve more funding from central government?

In a long time, and yes.

The tube trains can’t run forever. I can’t imagine someone else can develop and build an alternative cheaper than Siemens pumping out more of the same.
If Tfl need them and can’t afford them will the government dare lose London voters by not helping out, and lose northern voters by letting a northern factory close.

Lose which London voters? The tories are projected to keep about half a dozen seats in London on a good day. Labour may feel more commitment to London.

 

[HSTEd]

The originally projected NTfL orders were predicated on substantial increases in capacity.
If funding is not forthcoming for such increases in capacity than it is likely that the number of trains ordered would be cut heavily from previous estimates

 

[bramling]

Ultimately the political class wants it both ways.

They want a "competitive" market in rolling stock procurement, but they also want the vast majority of UK rolling stock "built" in the UK.

This results in the endless crises like the one that triggered this thread.

It has to chose one or the other, both is not sustainable.

The politicians want to *say* they’re buying British to assuage potential voters, especially in “red wall” type areas. What the actually do is quite possibly another matter.

When are TfL going to be in a better financial position? Does it involve more funding from central government?

TFL will be in a better financial position when either their revenue stream recovers (the opening of Crossrail should have helped that a bit), or the government stops playing games.

There’s little sign of the latter happening as there continues to be a “punish London” agenda quite clearly playing out as a hangover from the Johnson days. This negative agenda isn’t really too clever as come the election the Conservatives will need every vote they can get, though things are getting to the point where I can well see not a single Conservative parliamentary seat in London. Ironically it might actually be the unpopularity of Khan’s ULEZ extension that saves the day for the Conservatives as this might just turn a few people off Labour in outer-London seats.

I can well see Bakerloo fleet replacement being put off again, even though it’s probably going to reach the point where the existing trains run into serious issues. As for the Central Line, the heavy upgrade work just getting into swing on the 92 stock at the moment will determine how urgent fleet replacement there turns out to be, depending on how successful the upgrade project is. If it turns reliability around then replacing the 92 stock won’t be urgent. My gut feeling, especially bearing in mind how various mainline re-engineering projects have run into issues, is that this project probably won’t manage to achieve the level of transformation desired, but only time will tell on that.

 

[Thirteen]

The politicians want to *say* they’re buying British to assuage potential voters, especially in “red wall” type areas. What the actually do is quite possibly another matter.



TFL will be in a better financial position when either their revenue stream recovers (the opening of Crossrail should have helped that a bit), or the government stops playing games.

There’s little sign of the latter happening as there continues to be a “punish London” agenda quite clearly playing out as a hangover from the Johnson days. This negative agenda isn’t really too clever as come the election the Conservatives will need every vote they can get, though things are getting to the point where I can well see not a single Conservative parliamentary seat in London. Ironically it might actually be the unpopularity of Khan’s ULEZ extension that saves the day for the Conservatives as this might just turn a few people off Labour in outer-London seats.

I can well see Bakerloo fleet replacement being put off again, even though it’s probably going to reach the point where the existing trains run into serious issues. As for the Central Line, the heavy upgrade work just getting into swing on the 92 stock at the moment will determine how urgent fleet replacement there turns out to be, depending on how successful the upgrade project is. If it turns reliability around then replacing the 92 stock won’t be urgent. My gut feeling, especially bearing in mind how various mainline re-engineering projects have run into issues, is that this project probably won’t manage to achieve the level of transformation desired, but only time will tell on that.

I think a lot of Tory seats in London will more likely swing to Lib Dem with maybe a smattering of Labour seats. There are some areas that probably will remain safe no matter what.

In terms of the fleet replacement, I would imagine that if there is a Labour Government by the time the NTfL stock has started running on the Piccadilly Line then we might see some sort of deal done for the rest of the deep line stock to be replaced, the 1972 stock can't really keep going for much longer, we saw what happened to the 483s, it was literally on its last legs by the time they were finally replaced.

 

[Brubulus]

I think a lot of Tory seats in London will more likely swing to Lib Dem with maybe a smattering of Labour seats. There are some areas that probably will remain safe no matter what.

In terms of the fleet replacement, I would imagine that if there is a Labour Government by the time the NTfL stock has started running on the Piccadilly Line then we might see some sort of deal done for the rest of the deep line stock to be replaced, the 1972 stock can't really keep going for much longer, we saw what happened to the 483s, it was literally on its last legs by the time they were finally replaced.

Using the example of the 483s, they were 34 years older the 1972 stock. This suggests the 1972 stock still has a while to go before its is due for replacement, especially if they are given an Extra Heavy Overhaul like the 1938 stock was on the Bakerloo line.

 

[Meerkat]

In a long time, and yes.

Lose which London voters? The tories are projected to keep about half a dozen seats in London on a good day. Labour may feel more commitment to London.

The tube is used by those from the outer london/suburbia tory voters. Having to pay for new trains for the north and then having to use the oldest trains in the country themselves will not go down well.

 

[LLivery]

And we have a different loading gauge to mainland Europe, making us an uncompetitive place to make "European gauge" trains, leaving our factories very dependant on British orders.

I always said if I were to build a rolling stock factory, I'd want it in Kent (Ashford), not County Durham for that exact reason. Kent has a lot of deprivation and the ability to export by rail. So at the moment, we've got exports being logistically difficult, and a certain vote made it even more unattractive to order from the UK. We can't rely on the growing African market - the Chinese, French and Germans have that covered - plus I'd love to see a homegrown manufacturer(s) soon. Asia isn't going to happen, nor is transatlantic. The reality is, opening more factories was a big gamble (which I thought was stupid).

Wasn't Talgo also saying they wanted to open in Scotland? What happened there?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Mar 2023 ==

The tube is used by those from the outer london/suburbia tory voters. Having to pay for new trains for the north and then having to use the oldest trains in the country themselves will not go down well.

The Bexley/Thurrock/Medway/Broxbourne areas will still vote Tory, easily. The 'one nation' seats are hugely under threat by LibDems

 

[Mikey C]

Using the example of the 483s, they were 34 years older the 1972 stock. This suggests the 1972 stock still has a while to go before its is due for replacement, especially if they are given an Extra Heavy Overhaul like the 1938 stock was on the Bakerloo line.

Running an intensive underground service across London is a lot tougher than a gentle run across the IoW. And the IoW were able to cannibalise their 483s to keep enough going as they had more than they needed, not an option with the 72s!

 

[bramling]

Running an intensive underground service across London is a lot tougher than a gentle run across the IoW. And the IoW were able to cannibalise their 483s to keep enough going as they had more than they needed, not an option with the 72s!

LU have had the luxury of being able to cannibalise parts from both the 67 and 72Mk1 stock fleets. There shouldn’t be any shortage of spare parts, though whether enough of this was done in practice given the 72 stock is likely to be going on even longer than envisaged, is another matter.

Also the most recent timetable has thinned out the Bakerloo service a little.

It’s actually quite incredible how the 72 stock is going to last, given it was never one of the best designs in the first place. They’ve never been wonderfully reliable.

 

[MattRat]

The originally projected NTfL orders were predicated on substantial increases in capacity.
If funding is not forthcoming for such increases in capacity than it is likely that the number of trains ordered would be cut heavily from previous estimates

Couldn't they just order the same amount and use it to replace more stock?

 

[Kingston Dan]

This is the same Telegraph calling for the cancellation of HS2? Pure hypocrisy.

 

[JonathanH]

This is the same Telegraph calling for the cancellation of HS2? Pure hypocrisy.

I doubt they are trying to get more trains built to keep the factories alive, just reporting the news. Indeed, I imagine they would be happy for the factories to close if they can't survive the market pressures.

 

[DanNCL]

I can well see Bakerloo fleet replacement being put off again, even though it’s probably going to reach the point where the existing trains run into serious issues. As for the Central Line, the heavy upgrade work just getting into swing on the 92 stock at the moment will determine how urgent fleet replacement there turns out to be, depending on how successful the upgrade project is. If it turns reliability around then replacing the 92 stock won’t be urgent. My gut feeling, especially bearing in mind how various mainline re-engineering projects have run into issues, is that this project probably won’t manage to achieve the level of transformation desired, but only time will tell on that.

In terms of the fleet replacement, I would imagine that if there is a Labour Government by the time the NTfL stock has started running on the Piccadilly Line then we might see some sort of deal done for the rest of the deep line stock to be replaced, the 1972 stock can't really keep going for much longer, we saw what happened to the 483s, it was literally on its last legs by the time they were finally replaced.

Using the example of the 483s, they were 34 years older the 1972 stock. This suggests the 1972 stock still has a while to go before its is due for replacement, especially if they are given an Extra Heavy Overhaul like the 1938 stock was on the Bakerloo line.

LU have had the luxury of being able to cannibalise parts from both the 67 and 72Mk1 stock fleets. There shouldn’t be any shortage of spare parts, though whether enough of this was done in practice given the 72 stock is likely to be going on even longer than envisaged, is another matter.

Also the most recent timetable has thinned out the Bakerloo service a little.

It’s actually quite incredible how the 72 stock is going to last, given it was never one of the best designs in the first place. They’ve never been wonderfully reliable.

Not only did we see what happened to the 483s but we're now seeing exactly the same thing happen again to the Tyne & Wear Metrocars, and they're younger than the 72 stock!

Even the 38 stock didn't last as long in front line LU service as the 72 stock has, the last 38 stock was withdrawn from LU service at 50, the 72 stock is already 51. A stock made it to 52 so the 72 stock will surpass those for longevity too. The oldest examples on other networks I can think are the R32s in New York which lasted 57 years and the MP59s in Paris which have lasted 64 years and are being replaced this year. In both cases like the 72 stock large quantities had been withdrawn more than a decade earlier which left a huge supply of spare parts available to keep the remaining units going. Those two fleets but especially the MP59s are probably what are making TFL think that they can get even more time out of the 72 stock instead of replacing it.

The sheer number of spare parts available for the 72 stock is the only reason the 72 stock is still going. If the Mark 1s hadn't been withdrawn so early and provided a plentiful supply of spare parts the Mark 2s would have given up by now.

The 92 stock will be life expired at the end of the decade so the Central and Waterloo & City will both need new trains. The 95 stock might also be struggling by then with the pressure both of increasing age and covering a more intensive service than the fleet was designed for. So it wouldn't be inconcieveable to think there could be a rolling program of fleet replacement through Siemens over a 10 year period from 2025/26, starting with the Bakerloo, then moving to the Waterloo & City, then Central, then Northern, and leaving just the Jubilee and Victoria lines with non-Siemens stock on the deep level network. The 96 stock will be getting on by then too but it can't be replaced with the NTFL design.

 

[BayPaul]

There's an element of 'tail wagging dog' in a lot of the comments here. The railway exists to move passengers around the country, not to be a market for train manufacturers. What suits train manufacturers may not suit train operators. It makes sense to order new trains in a clumpy way - large numbers coming all together, to allow complete replacement of fleets, and common train types. Large numbers to cope with periods of expansion, smaller numbers when passenger numbers are down. It makes sense to build trains at a constant rate over many years. It makes sense to buy trains with innovative new features, it makes sense to build older designs. Ultimately it makes sense to have the flexibility to order trains when they are needed, rather than to have supply led BREL type of manufacturer.

 

[MattRat]

There's an element of 'tail wagging dog' in a lot of the comments here. The railway exists to move passengers around the country, not to be a market for train manufacturers. What suits train manufacturers may not suit train operators. It makes sense to order new trains in a clumpy way - large numbers coming all together, to allow complete replacement of fleets, and common train types. Large numbers to cope with periods of expansion, smaller numbers when passenger numbers are down. It makes sense to build trains at a constant rate over many years. It makes sense to buy trains with innovative new features, it makes sense to build older designs. Ultimately it makes sense to have the flexibility to order trains when they are needed, rather than to have supply led BREL type of manufacturer.

Except we don't have that. We have DFT led train buying, so the bare minimum if that. Maybe the solution therefore, is to have the DFT back off, then TOCs can buy what they want.

 

[bramling]

Not only did we see what happened to the 483s but we're now seeing exactly the same thing happen again to the Tyne & Wear Metrocars, and they're younger than the 72 stock!

Even the 38 stock didn't last as long in front line LU service as the 72 stock has, the last 38 stock was withdrawn from LU service at 50, the 72 stock is already 51. A stock made it to 52 so the 72 stock will surpass those for longevity too. The oldest examples on other networks I can think are the R32s in New York which lasted 57 years and the MP59s in Paris which have lasted 64 years and are being replaced this year. In both cases like the 72 stock large quantities had been withdrawn more than a decade earlier which left a huge supply of spare parts available to keep the remaining units going. Those two fleets but especially the MP59s are probably what are making TFL think that they can get even more time out of the 72 stock instead of replacing it.

The sheer number of spare parts available for the 72 stock is the only reason the 72 stock is still going. If the Mark 1s hadn't been withdrawn so early and provided a plentiful supply of spare parts the Mark 2s would have given up by now.

The 92 stock will be life expired at the end of the decade so the Central and Waterloo & City will both need new trains. The 95 stock might also be struggling by then with the pressure both of increasing age and covering a more intensive service than the fleet was designed for. So it wouldn't be inconcieveable to think there could be a rolling program of fleet replacement through Siemens over a 10 year period from 2025/26, starting with the Bakerloo, then moving to the Waterloo & City, then Central, then Northern, and leaving just the Jubilee and Victoria lines with non-Siemens stock on the deep level network. The 96 stock will be getting on by then too but it can't be replaced with the NTFL design.

I’d say it’s virtually a certainty that the 96 stock will be replaced before the 95 stock. Indeed LU did have a tentative plan for replacing the Jubilee fleet (and cascading a number of them to boost numbers on the Northern), but that seems to have gone very quiet now. The pecking order will now almost certainly be Piccadilly, Bakerloo, Central, Jubilee, Northern, Victoria, which apart from the Bakerloo and Piccadilly being transposed is actually correct chronological order - and in the case of those two the difference in age isn’t that significant and the 72 stock have likely had the easier life of the two.

My hunch is that the Northern Line’s 95 stock (for those who don’t know these should really be 98 stock - 95 was only chosen because that was when the Northern Line replacement fleet was originally planned, but got deferred as a result of the budget cuts of the early 90s recession) will hold up reasonably well. They have been much better looked after than some other fleets, probably due to the Alstom contract, and are a rather more mature design than the similar 96 stock. Whilst availability has taken a bit of a tumble recently, as has been the case with pretty much all LU fleets, they’re still doing well, and - crucially - whilst availability has dipped, they haven’t got to a stage where they’re sitting down in service. If anything they’ve actually probably got slightly better on that score, and from a position where they were already excellent. It is *very* rare for a 95 stock to properly sit down.

 

[HSTEd]

There's an element of 'tail wagging dog' in a lot of the comments here. The railway exists to move passengers around the country, not to be a market for train manufacturers. What suits train manufacturers may not suit train operators. It makes sense to order new trains in a clumpy way - large numbers coming all together, to allow complete replacement of fleets, and common train types. Large numbers to cope with periods of expansion, smaller numbers when passenger numbers are down. It makes sense to build trains at a constant rate over many years. It makes sense to buy trains with innovative new features, it makes sense to build older designs. Ultimately it makes sense to have the flexibility to order trains when they are needed, rather than to have supply led BREL type of manufacturer.

If the railway is to adopt that position then the Government needs to accept that there is unlikely to be any significant UK construction of rail vehicles.

The problem is the Government wants it both ways.