New or existing UK fleet, only 10 trains, possibly CAF?

[millemille]

Strange request this, hoping someone can help.

I've had an enquiry come in at work, through a 3rd party, allegedly from CAF for train equipment, the quantity of which suggests it's for 10 trains, for a fleet of possibly high speed trains supposedly operated by/to be operated by LNER.

I'm sceptical as to its veracity, but am I missing something?

 

[43096]

Strange request this, hoping someone can help.

I've had an enquiry come in at work, through a 3rd party, allegedly from CAF for train equipment, the quantity of which suggests it's for 10 trains, for a fleet of possibly high speed trains supposedly operated by/to be operated by LNER.

I'm sceptical as to its veracity, but am I missing something?

That sounds like the tender that LNER have/are issuing for additional trains to support the planned enhanced timetable and replace the last Mark 4 sets.

 

[DanNCL]

Strange request this, hoping someone can help.

I've had an enquiry come in at work, through a 3rd party, allegedly from CAF for train equipment, the quantity of which suggests it's for 10 trains, for a fleet of possibly high speed trains supposedly operated by/to be operated by LNER.

I'm sceptical as to its veracity, but am I missing something?

LNER want 10 more EMUs to replace the remaining class 91+mark 4 sets, however as far as I know there is no funding for this. Even if it were funded, ordering them from anyone other than Hitachi wouldn't make any sense as it would be replacing a microfleet with another microfleet.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

If it's merely an enquiry then it'll probably be they are working up a price to put in a bid for an imminent tender that they are expecting to be issued?

I agree it would be silly for LNER to buy anything other than another ten IETs, but I guess they may still have to issue a tender and receive quotes - the tender of course could be specified with enough detail that only further IETs would result from it.

 

[millemille]

That sounds like the tender that LNER have/are issuing for additional trains to support the planned enhanced timetable and replace the last Mark 4 sets.

LNER want 10 more EMUs to replace the remaining class 91+mark 4 sets, however as far as I know there is no funding for this. Even if it were funded, ordering them from anyone other than Hitachi wouldn't make any sense as it would be replacing a microfleet with another microfleet.

Many thanks both.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Strange request this, hoping someone can help.

I've had an enquiry come in at work, through a 3rd party, allegedly from CAF for train equipment, the quantity of which suggests it's for 10 trains, for a fleet of possibly high speed trains supposedly operated by/to be operated by LNER.

I'm sceptical as to its veracity, but am I missing something?

If it was CAF, surely they would be for Northern?

 

[squizzler]

Even if it were funded, ordering them from anyone other than Hitachi wouldn't make any sense as it would be replacing a microfleet with another microfleet.

I feel that passing a few crumbs of orders to an alternative supplier is actually very good practice because it keeps your main supplier on their toes rather than taking your business for granted.

 

[DanNCL]

I feel that passing a few crumbs of orders to an alternative supplier is actually very good practice because it keeps your main supplier on their toes rather than taking your business for granted.

I agree, and it wouldn’t surprise me if the preferred option was indeed not to take more 80xs, with the Azuma fleet being near enough universally unpopular both with passengers and on board staff (excluding drivers), but it does kind of defeat the main purpose of getting rid of the 91s which was to eliminate a micro-fleet, they might as well save money and keep the 91s a bit longer. That said, they’ll need replacing eventually, they won’t last forever.

 

[Roast Veg]

CAF will be bidding somehing akin to the 397s, which itself is only an order of 12. They could feasibly win the tender.

 

[mmh]

LNER want 10 more EMUs to replace the remaining class 91+mark 4 sets, however as far as I know there is no funding for this. Even if it were funded, ordering them from anyone other than Hitachi wouldn't make any sense as it would be replacing a microfleet with another microfleet.

In examples like this, public sector tender rules often mean a preferred supplier cannot automatically be chosen and others will be invited to tender, even if internally it's known to be highly unlikely that anyone other than the preferred supplier will win the contract.

 

[43096]

In examples like this, public sector tender rules often mean a preferred supplier cannot automatically be chosen and others will be invited to tender, even if internally it's known to be highly unlikely that anyone other than the preferred supplier will win the contract.

But the tender can be worded in such a way as to get what is wanted. For instance the London Midland tender for what became the 350/3 fleet, I believe specified the new sets had to be fully compatible with the 350/1 and 350/2 fleets. Which basically meant no one else would bother bidding other than Siemens.

 

[Mollman]

Info on LNER procurement:
https://bidstats.uk/tenders/2021/W19/750583864

Description​

LNER has commenced a procurement process with potential manufacturers for the design, manufacture, testing and supply (and associated maintenance activities) of a fleet of ten (10) InterCity trains (the “Base Order Units”), owner owned spares, special tools, simulator hardware and technical information, mock-ups (together the “Leased Equipment”) and depot works, with an option to procure up to an additional five (5) trains (“Option Units”) for use on the East Coast Franchise. The trains will provide LNER with additional capacity to accommodate future growth and have performance characteristics that enable the fleet to be timetabled effectively amongst modern InterCity trains. The trains shall be fully rated for operation on 25 kV overhead line equipment and have significant self-power capability for operation on non-electrified sections of the network and over non-electrified diversionary routes, increasing the flexibility of LNER’s fleet and the ability to provide uninterrupted services during engineering works. The subject of this contract notice is the procurement of financing for the Base Order Units and Option Units, if any, Leased Equipment, depot works and LNER’s project costs by way of an Operating Lease Agreement (OLA) through a qualified provider of rolling stock operating leasing solutions.

Total Quantity or Scope​

LNER has chosen to run the procurement under the negotiated procedure with a prior call for competition under Regulation 47 of the Utilities Contracts Regulations 2016 (UCR 2016). This procurement and all communication with suppliers will be managed electronically via LNER’s Proactis system. To participate in this procurement, suppliers must register an interest on the Proactis system by 07/06/2021 at 16.00.

 

[swt_passenger]

If it was CAF, surely they would be for Northern?

It isn’t “for” CAF. It’s for LNER, but they want bids, and despite 802s being the logical solution, (eg significant self-power capability), looks like CAF are interested.

 

[Halish Railway]

This extract from post #11 is particularly interesting.

The trains shall be fully rated for operation on 25 kV overhead line equipment and have significant self-power capability for operation on non-electrified sections of the network and over non-electrified diversionary routes, increasing the flexibility of LNER’s fleet and the ability to provide uninterrupted services during engineering works.

This seems to suggest some form of bi-mode or battery powered train. More Class 800s or even 802s would be my guess.

 

[py_megapixel]

It isn’t “for” CAF. It’s for LNER, but they want bids, and despite 802s being the logical solution, (eg significant self-power capability), looks like CAF are interested.

Presumably if desired they could specify in the ITT that compatibility with the 80x was required as a way of weeding out bids other than Hitachi? If they haven't/don't intend to do so presumably means they either don't care about compatibility (seems unlikely) or have written the specification incompetently (which would not surprise me at all).

I think I'll report this thread to be moved to the speculative section, given the sparseness of public details means we can do little but speculate.

 

[joncombe]

I wonder if, with the cracking issue on the IETs whether there is also consideration that having a high speed fleet all from one manufacturer might not be such a good idea?

As to the "micro fleet", well it's 10 units. Prior to the IETs LNER had a mix of MkIV+91 and HST+Mkt3. How many HST was there - I think a similar number to this order?

 

[DanNCL]

This isn’t the first time LNER have issued an invitation to tender. I can’t remember exactly when it was they did this previously, but I definitely remember seeing an invitation to tender for an order of 10 EMUs from them at some point last year. It can’t be the same invitation to tender, as this one is dated 11th May 2021

As to the "micro fleet", well it's 10 units. Prior to the IETs LNER had a mix of MkIV+91 and HST+Mkt3. How many HST was there - I think a similar number to this order?

It was 15, plus some spare power cars.

 

[Halish Railway]

Let’s not forget that the East Coast Mainline was once home to the king of microfleets - The sole Class 89!

Although we all know what happened to that.

 

[43096]

I wonder if, with the cracking issue on the IETs whether there is also consideration that having a high speed fleet all from one manufacturer might not be such a good idea?

As opposed to the cracking on the CAF 195 and 331 fleets, and perhaps more pertinently for this thread, the cracking on the new high speed units for Flytoget in Norway after less than a month in service, built by......... CAF.

 

[DB]

I wonder if, with the cracking issue on the IETs whether there is also consideration that having a high speed fleet all from one manufacturer might not be such a good idea?

As to the "micro fleet", well it's 10 units. Prior to the IETs LNER had a mix of MkIV+91 and HST+Mkt3. How many HST was there - I think a similar number to this order?

They didn't have much choice then - the HSTs were needed to go to the non-wired locations. They did standardise the interiors though - they were (apart from two HSTs acquired in the latter years) close to identical apart from the buffet.

The situation is different now, and they could order more IETs, with the economy of scale that would lead to with maintenance. I'd be surprised if anyone other than Hitachi gets the contract.

 

[swt_passenger]

This isn’t the first time LNER have issued an invitation to tender. I can’t remember exactly when it was they did this previously, but I definitely remember seeing an invitation to tender for an order of 10 EMUs from them at some point last year. It can’t be the same invitation to tender, as this one is dated 11th May 2021

It was a prior information notice (PIN) last year, about October, so basically an advance heads up to the industry - hence it is part of the same overall process.

The tender being discussed here is for financing, by the way, not the building…

 

[43096]

The tender being discussed here is for financing, by the way, not the building…

Which might give an idea as to where the real competition is with this order - who can finance some Detachi trains cheapest.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The situation is different now, and they could order more IETs, with the economy of scale that would lead to with maintenance. I'd be surprised if anyone other than Hitachi gets the contract.

CAF also had an option with TPE to supply more 125mph EMUs (5-7-car class 397s) should they need them.
That might be more economical than more Hitachi 80x.
Personally, I'm not sure LNER needs new trains in a GBR post-Covid context with TPE trains idle, but we'll have to see what happens.

 

[skyhigh]

Personally I wonder if CAF would intend servicing and maintenance to be based at Neville Hill. There's potentially some space available with the loss of HST work (and upcoming Mk4+91), and there's already CAF trained staff for work on 195/331s... that's completely speculative though.

I do wonder if the tender has been deliberately written in such a way to try and not make Hitachi the default winner, in an attempt to try and force them into offering more than just the basics at a cost of their choosing. Logically more 80x would be the sensible choice, but this is the railway!

 

[DanNCL]

CAF also had an option with TPE to supply more 125mph EMUs (5-7-car class 397s) should they need them.
That might be more economical than more Hitachi 80x.
Personally, I'm not sure LNER needs new trains in a GBR post-Covid context with TPE trains idle, but we'll have to see what happens.

TPE's option on extra 397s has expired.

TPE trains won't be idle from May 2022, they're already accounted for across all three of the "Nova" fleets as well as the 185s in the planned timetable. LNER's two options here are keep the 91+mark 4 sets or order new build EMUs, the latter being their preference it would appear.

Personally I wonder if CAF would intend servicing and maintenance to be based at Neville Hill. There's potentially some space available with the loss of HST work (and upcoming Mk4+91), and there's already CAF trained staff for work on 195/331s... that's completely speculative though.

The only possible issue with that is that for a short period of time the servicing of both the 91 hauled sets and the new EMUs would have to be done at the same time, which Neville Hill doesn't have the space for. Before the HSTs had left Neville Hill, only three of the seven Mark 4 sets could be accomodated there, the other four were in Doncaster (three in Belmont yard and one on overhaul at Wabtec).

I do wonder if the tender has been deliberately written in such a way to try and not make Hitachi the default winner, in an attempt to try and force them into offering more than just the basics at a cost of their choosing. Logically more 80x would be the sensible choice, but this is the railway!

Indeed, especially with the negative feedback the Azuma fleet has had, and the poor availability of them, which was already the case before the cracks were discovered. I could fully understand why LNER wouldn't want to get extra 80x units, as much they'd make sense from an operational convenience point of view.

 

[jopsuk]

Strange request this, hoping someone can help.

I've had an enquiry come in at work, through a 3rd party, allegedly from CAF for train equipment, the quantity of which suggests it's for 10 trains, for a fleet of possibly high speed trains supposedly operated by/to be operated by LNER.

I'm sceptical as to its veracity, but am I missing something?

so you work for a train part/equipment supplier?

 

[jonesy3001]

Didn't northern have an option to get extra carriages for the 195/0s or 331/0s or more 331s, is that dead in the water now?

 

[millemille]

so you work for a train part/equipment supplier?

Yes, Engineering Director.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Indeed, especially with the negative feedback the Azuma fleet has had, and the poor availability of them, which was already the case before the cracks were discovered. I could fully understand why LNER wouldn't want to get extra 80x units, as much they'd make sense from an operational convenience point of view.

The negative feedback is basically entirely to do with seating, isn't it? Otherwise it's just a metal tube with windows like every other metal tube with windows. There is nothing that would make one think any CAF units would have a different interior.

 

[DanNCL]

The negative feedback is basically entirely to do with seating, isn't it? Otherwise it's just a metal tube with windows like every other metal tube with windows. There is nothing that would make one think any CAF units would have a different interior.

It's more than just that. Poor ride quality (which going to CAF won't solve!), excessively bright lighting, lack of luggage storage space (although that's been improved recently), not to mention the way too frequent short forms which have regularly occured ever since 5 car 80xs entered service with LNER, and have become even more common with the recent cracking issue.