Northern Tender for up to 450 units

[GoneSouth]

Tbh never felt Northern would pick Hitachi to build new trains if the ITT becomes an order, which again might not happen.

It surely has to happen in some form, we can’t keep the provinces running on sprinters for another 30 years

 

[Mamorin]

All sprinters will have to be replaced soon yes, but Northern's ITT is not guaranteed to become an order.

DFT want cut backs and given how costly new trains are Northern's ITT may come to nothing and Northern may have to keep their entire sprinter fleet going long into the 2030s.

 

[Bletchleyite]

All sprinters will have to be replaced soon yes, but Northern's ITT is not guaranteed to become an order.

DFT want cut backs and given how costly new trains are Northern's ITT may come to nothing and Northern may have to keep their entire sprinter fleet going long into the 2030s.

Or they get 51 185s replaced by the TPE order, of course. Not great as they are, but they could be derated, e.g. by removing the middle coach's engine, and could replace 195s on longer runs with fewer stops, cascading those to stoppers (which they are very good at) to unseat 51 15x. Nowhere near all of them but a decent inroad.

 

[Mamorin]

That could work, I'd add to what you've proposed by replacing an extra 27 15x with the 175s.

Though Angel Trains do plan to scrap the 175s next year no lease is taken out on them, so Northern will not get the 175s.

Just got to wait and see what if anything happens with the ITT to see what the long term plan is for Northern's fleet.

 

[Ben427]

It surely has to happen in some form, we can’t keep the provinces running on sprinters for another 30 years

You'd hope so but based on Northern's previous fleet I'll not hold my breath

 

[HSTEd]

All sprinters will have to be replaced soon yes, but Northern's ITT is not guaranteed to become an order.

DFT want cut backs and given how costly new trains are Northern's ITT may come to nothing and Northern may have to keep their entire sprinter fleet going long into the 2030s.

Dumping a bunch of old stock would allow major savings in operational terms though.

Keeping old stuff going can get very expensive very quickly.

 

[Mamorin]

I'm aware of that. Don't know if the DFT is aware of that.

Now would most likely be one of the best times for this ITT to become an order given order books for the UK rolling stock market are drying up. With a lot of competition and a large possible order should come a good price.

Just going to have to wait and see what happens.

 

[Snow1964]

I'm aware of that. Don't know if the DFT is aware of that.

Just going to have to wait and see what happens.

What's going on strategy wise with rolling stock might be in this Transport Committee debate today (haven't had time to watch it)

Parliamentlive.tv

Transport Committee

parliamentlive.tv

 

[dgl]

Dumping a bunch of old stock would allow major savings in operational terms though.

Keeping old stuff going can get very expensive very quickly.

I understand for some units they are getting very expensive to maintain as parts availability is dire and engine overhauls on some units (ones with Perkins engines?) are astronomically expensive.
All operators of sprinters and Turbos will need replacement stock sooner rather than later now any re-engine projects seem to be off the cards.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I'm aware of that. Don't know if the DFT is aware of that.

Exactly what qualifications and product-type knowledge do prospective employees at the DfT have to hold and are able to display in their employment there? Are not the staff at the DfT subject to normal career reviews where their performance can be monitored?

How on earth have your stated obvious employment talents not been recognised by your stated knowledge on matters that you make claim that the DfT may not be aware of?

 

[Energy]

Exactly what qualifications and product-type knowledge do prospective employees at the DfT have to hold and are able to display in their employment there? Are not the staff at the DfT subject to normal career reviews where their performance can be monitored?

How on earth have your stated obvious employment talents not been recognised by your stated knowledge on matters that you make claim that the DfT may not be aware of?

It's civil servants with largely normal civil servant experience. However that doesn't mean that they can't recognise that old assets are very expensive to maintain.

 

[Mamorin]

How on earth have your stated obvious employment talents not been recognised by your stated knowledge on matters that you make claim that the DfT may not be aware of?

When I said the following:

I'm aware of that. Don't know if the DFT is aware of that.

I was talking in regards to DFT wanting to cut costs, does the DFT (well minsters at the DFT) see that in the long run replacing old trains now is cheeper in the long run than keeping old trains running for like 10+ years.

Civil servants may understand old asserts (in this case trains) are expensive to maintain, but do minsters (who get the final say) understand?

Minsters would not let Southern get more stock to replace their 313s and 455s because too costly, instead it was just cut services.

What happened with Southern could happen to Northern, TOC asks for more (or in Northern's case new) stock, DFT says no new stock, and tells TOC to bin old stock and cut services.

 

[Wolfie]

When I said the following:

I was talking in regards to DFT wanting to cut costs, does the DFT (well minsters at the DFT) see that in the long run replacing old trains now is cheeper in the long run than keeping old trains running for like 10+ years.

Civil servants may understand old asserts (in this case trains) are expensive to maintain, but do minsters (who get the final say) understand?

Minsters would not let Southern get more stock to replace their 313s and 455s because too costly, instead it was just cut services.

What happened with Southern could happen to Northern, TOC asks for more (or in Northern's case new) stock, DFT says no new stock, and tells TOC to bin old stock and cut services.

You do, l assume, know that DfT has to justify everything that it does with respect to investment to HMT.

 

[Mamorin]

I am aware of that yes, hence why the DFT's answer to a TOC asking for more or new stock is "bin the old stock and cut services".

Thats a quick and cheep way to deal with that problem and keep HMT happy by not spending any money and in fact making savings.

 

[Wolfie]

I am aware of that yes, hence why the DFT's answer to a TOC asking for more or new stock is "bin the old stock and cut services".

Thats a quick and cheep way to deal with that problem and keep HMT happy by not spending any money and in fact making savings.

How to show that you have no knowledge of the internal workings of Government without saying that....

A case for overall departmental spending goes to HMT at least for every spending round. Major investments are subject to their own justification and HMT will both probe deeply and have to be satisfied. Not to mention the delights of the Public Accounts Committee to review things....

Oh the Permanent Secretary has to send departmental accounts to Parliament every year too.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

What's going on strategy wise with rolling stock might be in this Transport Committee debate today (haven't had time to watch it)

Parliamentlive.tv

Transport Committee

parliamentlive.tv

Plenty of content for other threads, but little for this one, Northern was mentioned pretty much only once.

"2006 vehicles that are going to be 35 years old by 2030, of which 1600 are diesel trains." - Referring to carriages (~400 of which are Northern's), as I'm only aware of ~1.2k DMUs.
States Northern are "slightly further behind" ScotRail in terms of new trains.
"Until they're an order they don't exist" (not in reference to any specific order).
Secretary of State said a roadmap (more like railmap) of procurement due by the end of the year.
Discussion of discontinuous electrification.

 

[Mamorin]

Thanks for finding the key points in the video, I tried watching it myself but it was a bit too long for me at over 2 hours long.

 

[Mat17]

I have Northern as having 16 170s, compared to their 187 Sprinters, that's not a significant amount, surely they'd be best with EMR who seem to be collecting all the 170s.

I hope not, the 170s are the best diesel trains Northern have got.

 

[JonathanH]

Minsters would not let Southern get more stock to replace their 313s and 455s because too costly, instead it was just cut services.

What happened with Southern could happen to Northern, TOC asks for more (or in Northern's case new) stock, DFT says no new stock, and tells TOC to bin old stock and cut services.

In general, what has happened at Southern has been a successful policy, but in that instance there were formations which could be reduced to match demand, and peak extra services that were unnecessary.

In Northern's case, it is harder to cut formations in the same way and fewer peak only services. It might however be noted that the Northern 319s are being eliminated by cutting formation lengths. The opportunity to do that with the diesel fleet seems more challenging.

 

[Neptune]

I hope not, the 170s are the best diesel trains Northern have got.

It’s a regular suggestion which never seems to go away.

It’s obvious that everybody who suggests this doesnt think it through. Nobody acknowledges that EMR have enough 170’s (more arriving from Wales this week) and seem to think that the millions spent at Botanic Gardens depot to become a 170 specialist depot is not important.

They then drag up the old line that they work on stopping services that they aren’t suited to (what services do some of them work in the East Mids)? They also ignore the fact that the majority of the fleet in any one day work on the fast Sheffield - Scarborough services.

Alternative suggestions always seem to be EMR’s 158’s coming the other way which is odd as it seems that these people either think we should have 2 car trains replacing 3 car trains or they argue that we get more 158’s from EMR that could work as 4 car trains ignoring the fact that this would then leave EMR short. They also never explain where are we stabling these extra units?

No don’t worry, Northern’s 170’s are going nowhere.

 

[td97]

It seems that Northern want a single, common fleet, that has the ability to remove the alternative traction mode (as yet undefined) as and when electrification is delivered.

Source at Northern:

"The purpose [of the rolling stock order] ... is get one unit which fits the entire Northern network"

Key dates are

• Contract signature early 2025
• Late 2028 new EMUs
• 2029 for new multi-mode units

 

[Vectron383]

Stadler would doubtless find removing a power pack quite easy if it came to it… Clean separation, I’m assuming no need to strip down and spend a substantial amount of time in works as with underfloor designs…

 

[jonesy3001]

I bet they'll stick with CAF but with corridor connections like the 196s and 197s.

 

[Harvey B]

It seems that Northern want a single, common fleet, that has the ability to remove the alternative traction mode (as yet undefined) as and when electrification is delivered.

Source at Northern:


Key dates are

• Contract signature early 2025
• Late 2028 new EMUs
• 2029 for new multi-mode units

What's the likelihood that this order will end up being more CAF Civities? I personally wouldn't be opposed to the idea (although I think they need to really order something more like the 196s and 197s which have cab end gangways)

Also, if this order is including a replacement of the 333s and 170s then I'd like to question why they are willing to order replacements for perfectly good mid life rolling stock that probably have another 15 years of their Operating life still left in them?

 

[507021]

I have to be honest, another five years of 150s isn't a prospect that fills me with much excitement, but at least their retirement is finally on the cards and not before time. Presumably the new EMUs would be to replace both the 323 and 333 fleets, plus further electrification?

 

[Harvey B]

I bet they'll stick with CAF but with corridor connections like the 196s and 197s.

I've literally just said the same thing above. And I wouldn't be opposed to it as I really like the Civities that Northern have got. They're probably my favourite trains in the Northern fleet

 

[507021]

While choosing CAF would make a lot of sense, whatever is ultimately chosen will be because it best matches the specification Northern are asking for. By the time a new fleet of EMUs potentially begins to enter service in late 2028, the 333s will be approaching 30 years old, which isn't what I'd call mid-life. They are also a highly non-standard micro fleet, so while I personally consider the 333s to be very decent units, it just doesn't make sense to retain them longer term.

 

[Harvey B]

I have to be honest, another five years of 150s isn't a prospect that fills me with much excitement, but at least their retirement is finally on the cards and not before time. Presumably the new EMUs would be to replace both the 323 and 333 fleets, plus further electrification?

I can understand why Northern would want to replace their 323 stock by 2030 as they are rapidly approaching the end of their service life. But why would they want to get rid of the 333s at the same time? Won't they be perfectly good to use up until 2040?

While choosing CAF would make a lot of sense, whatever is ultimately chosen will be because it best matches the specification Northern are asking for. By the time a new fleet of EMUs potentially begins to enter service in late 2028, the 333s will be approaching 30 years old, which isn't what I'd call mid-life. They are also a highly non-standard micro fleet, so while I personally consider the 333s to be very decent units, it just doesn't make sense to retain them longer term.

Won't the 333s still have another 10 years of their service life left in them by 2028? Would it not be best to keep them another 10 years and run them until the end of their life instead of scrapping them?

 

[507021]

I can understand why Northern would want to replace their 323 stock by 2030 as they are rapidly approaching the end of their service life. But why would they want to get rid of the 333s at the same time? Won't they be perfectly good to use up until 2040?


Won't the 333s still have another 10 years of their service life left in them by 2028? Would it not be best to keep them another 10 years and run them until the end of their life instead of scrapping them?

As I said, the 333s will be nearly 30 years old and highly non-standard, so it wouldn't make sense to keep them.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Won't the 333s still have another 10 years of their service life left in them by 2028? Would it not be best to keep them another 10 years and run them until the end of their life instead of scrapping them?

Once that was said in certain quarters about the Class 142 Pacers long after their expected demise.