• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Southern and Bombardier

Status
Not open for further replies.

starrymarkb

Established Member
Joined
4 Aug 2009
Messages
5,985
Location
Exeter
Looks like Bombardier may be trying to get out of Derby

Via Zelo Street.
But the people at Rail Business Intelligence have picked up on the company’s dwindling interest in the Derby plant, as those receiving Roger Ford’s latest Informed Sources e-Preview today have seen.

“Talk that [train operator] Southern could order some more Class 377 Electrostars [multiple unit trains] from Bombardier to ease the heat over Derbygate was confirmed on 16 September” notes Roger. The order will be for 130 vehicles formed into 26 five coach sets. This would keep the Derby production line occupied for more than six months.

However, “according to Informed Sources, Bombardier has been trying to sell Southern the more expensive Greater Anglia Class 379 design, rather than manufacture what its major customer needs – some more of the simpler Class 377. Of course this will involve extra effort from Bombardier and its supply chain to switch back to the earlier build”.

“But if Bombardier were serious about keeping Derby open [my emphasis], you might expect them to be accommodating, especially since Southern could be in the market for over 350 Class 377 vehicles in the longer term”. Elsewhere in the email, Roger concludes that “for the foreseeable future, the railways in the UK are unlikely to generate enough orders to support even a single factory”.

So Southern want 377s, Bombardier are offering 379s and aren't willing to give the customer what they want - isn't that why IE went to Hyundai?

very little attention has thus far been paid to the conduct of Bombardier Transportation, which has not been universally beneficial to some of the European countries in which it operates – or no longer operates. Because this is a company with established form for buying up firms and then closing them down.

Bombardier told that its plants in Berlin were surplus to requirements: there was too much capacity and not enough demand. So the sites were left to Swiss manufacturer Stadler, who are expanding capacity by 50% and even adding an extra site to their facilities around the city.

Stadler, who had not previously been a serious player in the train building market, also benefited from Bombardier’s actions in Switzerland – a country, one might note, that is not in the EU – where the latter bought and then closed down companies like Schindler and SLM. The Swiss demand for Bombardier’s offerings has, not surprisingly, declined substantially.

Bombardier also ceased to be flavour of the month in Portugal, after they bought up Sorefame, whose distinctive Budd-style stainless finish can still be seen on many of the country’s trains, and then closed and asset-stripped the factory. Fortunately, substantial engineering capability was retained by operator CP at its Entroncamento site. A recent order for electric locomotives went to Siemens, not Bombardier.

Which brings us back to the UK, where Bombardier have deliberately run down the works at Crewe – repair work ceased last year after management apparently lost interest, with machinery removal following – and many of the buildings have been demolished. The present work, on bogies and wheelsets, could end at any time.

And management at Bombardier will not be too fussed if Derby follows Crewe into a slow decline. Already rumours are rife that part or all of the Crewe site is to be sold off for other uses, and thus Bombardier will retain rights to the technology, maximise their return, and retain shareholder value. Meanwhile, politicians will squabble among themselves and miss the main event.

With the workforce, of course, screwed over either way. Such is life.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

anthony263

Established Member
Joined
19 Aug 2008
Messages
6,531
Location
South Wales
Certainly isnt helping Bombardiers case is it?

A lot of people have suspected that Bombardier want to close derby, but were using the thameslink loss as a bit of a scapegoat. I can personally see the pantograph car's for the class 220/221/222's being bult at Bombardiers european factories.

I suppose if they do close derby it may help Hitachi if/when they build their factory
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
i wonder if this could lead to Southern looking elsewhere - Desiro / Desiro City anyone?

Solution = order 379s for Northern and let Southern have their 377s back before the 319s are released from Thameslink.

Southern said they needed new units in service ASAP and the 377 cascade wasn't happening ASAP so they shouldn't be allowed to order a new design which may take longer to deliver and will require crew training before they can be put in to service.
 

fgwrich

Established Member
Joined
15 Apr 2009
Messages
9,281
Location
Between Edinburgh and Exeter
You mean Hitachi, not Hyundai.

Nope - Bombardier entered the bidding race to build the new DMU Fleet for Irish Rail...Bombardier wanted something with an Intercity Design, Bombardier only offerd the 170, So naturally IE's reaction was give us what we want, or b*gger off - Irish Rail now has a fleet of 22000 Railcar / DMUs, built in a joint effort by Mitsui & Hyundai Rotem of South Korea...

(Which are excellent DMUs, designed around the interiors of the Mk3s they have replaced, designed by a british company, and really do put the 170s out to shame!)
The 22000

Interior:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0cq5RlT4BU&feature=related

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IE_22000_Class

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHrrLoinrFg&feature=related
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
Solution = order 379s for Northern and let Southern have their 377s back before the 319s are released from Thameslink.

Southern said they needed new units in service ASAP and the 377 cascade wasn't happening ASAP so they shouldn't be allowed to order a new design which may take longer to deliver and will require crew training before they can be put in to service.

I thought that SN wanting additional 377s was to tide them over whilst they wait for the (disrupted) Thameslink delivery to cascade? So how would ordering 379s for Northern help that?
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
I thought that SN wanting additional 377s was to tide them over whilst they wait for the (disrupted) Thameslink delivery to cascade? So how would ordering 379s for Northern help that?

The 377/5 can be released first and put straight in to service at Southern instead of the 319s being release first, then being sent for refurbishment, then being sent to Northern.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,382
The 377/5 can be released first and put straight in to service at Southern instead of the 319s being release first, then being sent for refurbishment, then being sent to Northern.

Neither the 377/5s or the 319s can be released until the first Thameslink units arrive in 2015 - that is two years later then the date the 377/5s were required back by SN under their franchise agreement.

The extra 377s cover that 2 year gap at SN, but will do nothing to help provide units to use with the NW electrification.
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
Neither the 377/5s or the 319s can be released until the first Thameslink units arrive in 2015 - that is two years later then the date the 377/5s were required back by SN under their franchise agreement.

Northern were due extra units to meet growth by 2012, which got put back to 2013 when the previous DfT decided to scrap the new order and send up 319s instead. It's now looking like 2015 before the 319s will be released. It's one rule for the South and another for the North.
 

imagination

Member
Joined
3 Aug 2010
Messages
485
Nope - Bombardier entered the bidding race to build the new DMU Fleet for Irish Rail...Bombardier wanted something with an Intercity Design, Bombardier only offerd the 170, So naturally IE's reaction was give us what we want, or b*gger off - Irish Rail now has a fleet of 22000 Railcar / DMUs, built in a joint effort by Mitsui & Hyundai Rotem of South Korea...

(Which are excellent DMUs, designed around the interiors of the Mk3s they have replaced, designed by a british company, and really do put the 170s out to shame!)
The 22000

Interior:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0cq5RlT4BU&feature=related

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IE_22000_Class

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHrrLoinrFg&feature=related

Oh sorry thought you said IEP.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,706
Well we could always buy out the Derby works for the taxpayer and then start trying to get offers for trains to build under licence.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,382
Northern were due extra units to meet growth by 2012, which got put back to 2013 when the previous DfT decided to scrap the new order and send up 319s instead. It's now looking like 2015 before the 319s will be released. It's one rule for the South and another for the North.

I don't disagree - but there should be a parallel order for enough additional units for the Northern services in that case. Diverting SN's contracted capacity increase shouldn't really be the solution.
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
I don't disagree - but there should be a parallel order for enough additional units for the Northern services in that case. Diverting SN's contracted capacity increase shouldn't really be the solution.

I was meaning if Southern can't get Bombardier to deliver 377s and on time that something should be ordered for Northern then Southern could have their 377/5s back as soon as the first Thameslink units are delivered (which is earlier than at present.)
 

LouJ

Member
Joined
3 Dec 2008
Messages
303
One major problem for Bombardier at Deby is the inability to keep the production lines full. The DoT take a boom or bust approach rather than keeping a steady flow of new orders. A further issue is Derby's inability to deliver new stock to Europe by rail due to loading gauge problems. This means they cannot pick up orders in Europe and manufacture them at Derby. However their European plants can manufacture UK loading gauge trains and deliver them by rail
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
Is it really that big a problem though? Whenever we recieve rolling stock in this country it comes by road or is unloaded at a port. Germany builds large rail components then ships them to Austria for assembly.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
Are Southern just wanting these EMUs to satisfy franchise "minimums" (within a set timescale), or is it genuinely because it would be profitable?

As far as I see it, if some TOCs want to invest in new/additional stock (like Pendolini extension) then they should be encouraged to. Its just frustrating when my local franchises will only invest if coerced into it with state support...
 

Pumbaa

Established Member
Joined
19 Feb 2008
Messages
4,982
As far as I see it, if some TOCs want to invest in new/additional stock (like Pendolini extension) then they should be encouraged to. Its just frustrating when my local franchises will only invest if coerced into it with state support...

Well they are 'free' to now, DfT has returned to TOC led procurement rather than DfT led procurement. Of course DfT has to agree to it, but hey... Elephant a bite at a time and all that...
 

HH

Established Member
Joined
31 Jul 2009
Messages
4,505
Location
Essex
Northern were due extra units to meet growth by 2012, which got put back to 2013 when the previous DfT decided to scrap the new order and send up 319s instead. It's now looking like 2015 before the 319s will be released. It's one rule for the South and another for the North.

2015 may even be optimistic. The Siemens contract signing was just put back by 4 months and the Siemens units will be delivered 1 per week. That means at least October 2015 before all the 377/5s can be released (and the 377/2 about to be sent to TL on spot hire).

Does anyone think that it won't slip any further?
 

NSE

Established Member
Joined
3 Mar 2010
Messages
1,728
I don't like FCC having the 377's. I have a bit of a soft spot for them and Southern and although I know they are helping in the Thameslink route, I want them back :D
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
28,046
Location
UK
Well we could always buy out the Derby works for the taxpayer and then start trying to get offers for trains to build under licence.

Wasn't the story that they wanted out and to sell the land for housing, meaning Bombardier could make a whopping profit by selling it to developers?

So, I doubt they'd seek to sell it to anyone wanting to keep the factory going.

Given they were going to lay off nearly everyone even if they won the TL contract, I think it's been pretty obvious for some time that they probably wanted out - and losing the contract just gave them a scapegoat, instead of winning and then closing the factory to build in mainland Europe.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,706
Given they were going to lay off nearly everyone even if they won the TL contract, I think it's been pretty obvious for some time that they probably wanted out - and losing the contract just gave them a scapegoat, instead of winning and then closing the factory to build in mainland Europe.

At the risk of sounding like some sort of left-wing loon..... we could always just slap a compulsory purchase order on the plant.... or just buy Bombardier (its publically traded right?) and pack the board, divest everything that isnt Derby Works and its IP and cackle insanely.....
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
28,046
Location
UK
Does the land have planning consent for housing if it is currently industrial?

If not, don't grant such permission (I know it isn't quite that simple).
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
2015 may even be optimistic. The Siemens contract signing was just put back by 4 months and the Siemens units will be delivered 1 per week. That means at least October 2015 before all the 377/5s can be released (and the 377/2 about to be sent to TL on spot hire).

Does anyone think that it won't slip any further?

Maybe I'm not being clear.

Currently the order of release from Thameslink is the 319s first and then the 377/5s. Despite that Northern are due to get 319s at around the same time as Southern get the 377/5s because of the proposed refurbishment/life extension programme for the 319s and crew training/official clearance being required for the 319s before they are in passenger service. Even if some 319s are put in to service before refurbishment it will mean less capacity than expected while the refurbishment programme is being carried out.

However, if Southern can't agree something I suggested something should be ordered for the North West now and the 377/5s should be released first allowing both Northern and Southern to get stock earlier than would otherwise be the case.

The current expectation is for the first 319s to be released in 2015, opposed to 2012 as the previous government originally proposed. Yes 2015 can slip back further but at the moment 2015 is the expectation for the first of the current Thameslink units to be released.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,382
I don't like FCC having the 377's. I have a bit of a soft spot for them and Southern and although I know they are helping in the Thameslink route, I want them back :D

FCC's current 377/5s have never been in service with SN yet, your request makes no sense until December, when FCC do start borrowing existing SN units...
 

HH

Established Member
Joined
31 Jul 2009
Messages
4,505
Location
Essex
Maybe I'm not being clear.

Currently the order of release from Thameslink is the 319s first and then the 377/5s. Despite that Northern are due to get 319s at around the same time as Southern get the 377/5s because of the proposed refurbishment/life extension programme for the 319s and crew training/official clearance being required for the 319s before they are in passenger service. Even if some 319s are put in to service before refurbishment it will mean less capacity than expected while the refurbishment programme is being carried out.

However, if Southern can't agree something I suggested something should be ordered for the North West now and the 377/5s should be released first allowing both Northern and Southern to get stock earlier than would otherwise be the case.

The current expectation is for the first 319s to be released in 2015, opposed to 2012 as the previous government originally proposed. Yes 2015 can slip back further but at the moment 2015 is the expectation for the first of the current Thameslink units to be released.

I was speaking to members of the TLP team today, and their plan is to return the 377s first.
 

paul1609

Established Member
Joined
28 Jan 2006
Messages
7,234
Location
Wittersham Kent
Looks like Bombardier may be trying to get out of Derby

Via Zelo Street.


So Southern want 377s, Bombardier are offering 379s and aren't willing to give the customer what they want - isn't that why IE went to Hyundai?

I do have some sympathy with Bombardier over this. I wonder how bigger fleet Ford would require to produce a year 1998 specification Fiesta?
Isnt the electrostar control system based on windows 95 running on 125 mb memory? To be honest I'd be surprised if the late nineties spec 377 even meets current safety requirements.



 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
I do have some sympathy with Bombardier over this. I wonder how bigger fleet Ford would require to produce a year 1998 specification Fiesta?
Isnt the electrostar control system based on windows 95 running on 125 mb memory? To be honest I'd be surprised if the late nineties spec 377 even meets current safety requirements

Fair comment, but we are still talking an order roughly twice the size of the 180 "fleet" (26x5, compared to 14x5)
 

Nym

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2007
Messages
9,164
Location
Somewhere, not in London
Isnt the electrostar control system based on windows 95 running on 125 mb memory? To be honest I'd be surprised if the late nineties spec 377 even meets current safety requirements.

The question begs itself, would the units be more reliable if they wern't based on Windows?
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
28,046
Location
UK
Surely the software could be written for a newer version of the OS, and still be fully compatible?

Is it Win 95 or Windows CE, as used more in embedded systems? That is actually pretty stable and used in loads of things.

What do the 379s use? Mac OS?!

Bombardier might need to recompile some code but I am sure they could factor this into the cost.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top