And that is the bit I don't understand.
It was at a time of Buy "British" and regular threats from Bombardier about the future of Derby. The SWR order followed the orders for 345, 710 and 720 so was by no means out of step.
It doesn't work like that. DfT invites bids for a franchise. It sets the requirements for that franchise, often expressed as where trains need to run and the number of seats/places to be provided at named places and times. They also had quality incentives and, as I understand it, new trains scored highly in terms of the incentives. First Group's role was to offer a bid based on cost of operation (low cost gains points) plus how they might score highly on the quality objectives. They will have evaluated lease costs for existing trains and for new trains, allowing for the fact that there were insufficient trains on SWT to meet the DfT's specification. We aren't privy to the First Group financial evaluation but it appears that the lease costs for new trains was lower than the lease costs for existing trains. From a bidder point of view, delivering the best offer against the DfT's specification is the only thing that matters!
Considering they’re nearing the end of the original franchise agreement and not a single one of their new trains has entered service, safe to say this cost-saving move spectacularly backfired…
Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
Onboard toilets (future rolling stock) were a requirement in the South Western Railway franchise agreement.
Indeed but that would have been possible with any rolling stock. Bombardier (now Alstom) are not the only manufacturer to supply rolling stock with toilets!
The franchise agreement comes after negotiation with the winning bidder, who helpfully chose to include this obvious improvement. However there was definitely no specific requirement to provide toilets on all future stock at the invitation to tender (ITT) stage.
I would agree with this, but not in response to that post, rather the post about keeping the 707s.
Quoting from the RAIL article which quotes from the ASLEF letter to members there are 23 faults that require resultion before acceptance, the most serious of which appears to be the obstacle detection equipment. Changing the cab ends wouldn't resolve that!
The DfT technical requirements effectively meant new stock as existing stock couldn't meet the DfT requirements e.g. standing densities had to be supported by an appropriate number of hand hold opportunities for those people (which the existing Desiro City family fail on in the vestibule areas due the the ceiling panel there needing to be easily removable to due to the electronics hidden above), when stead the ability to have your legs in front of you in the window seats rather than skewed
Especially when you consider the 345/720s have entered service with few problems.
I wouldn't really consider that to be the case looking at their MTINs (cf Modern Railways) - way below that expected - and way below that for Siemens' trains.
Maybe using the 720s isn't the best example considering how late the first one was to enter service due to various issues
And the 345s must have had one of the most cosseted launches into service of a major EMU class for decades. Electrostars may be numerous, but so are Desiros, and their service so far has been less troublesome and generally give more customer satisfaction.
If you overlook the very late delivery and many problems (particularly software) that they’ve had…
Also have a look at the delay involved in each failure which makes the picture a bit more interesting and complex than the MTIN one alone.
But weren't the 707s also done to meet a spec given by the DfT for the suburbans?
It was an SWT led project for purchase a small batch of new stock for an urgent requirement, like the 458s.
Which RAIL article was that again? Do you have a link to it?
And before SWT he was responsible for Desiro UK at Siemens. Is it coincidence that the Desiro and Aventra feature the flat roof profile?
Yet the Desiro City design was fine for Thameslink and the crush loading there. Never, never, never let DfT civil servants near train design and specification, because they will screw it up. Every time.
Yes, of course, I'd forgotten about his role there. That's when he first moved to the UK.
It's in the most recent issue. I don't have it online and I'm reluctant post a photo of the article. Go to WH Smith's if you want a read.
Their lateness was a mere blip compared with that of the 701s.
Oh I see. No worries.
