Polaris train not going ahead?

daikilo · 17 Jun 2013

swt_passenger said:
I always thought Polaris would never happen in any shape or form. I don't think I was the only one...

I think CSRE will re-emerge as a European foothold, maybe with a different name, and it will succeed. If I were Hitachi or Siemens, I would seriously worry.

The question is which country they will use as a base. UK makes a lot of sense given the very open bidding. If I were in the Welsh Assembly, I would be courting them.

RailUK Forums

GNERman · 17 Jun 2013

asylumxl said:
Pacesetter = 20m carriages with 1/4 and 3/4 doors.
Pulsar = 23m carriages with 1/4 and 3/4 doors or end doors

The Pacesetter was equivalent to the 15x series and the Pulsar was more equivelant to the 16x/17x.

Not what my literature says...!

Pacesetter - 1/3 and 2/3 doors, 23m in length and, with the proposal of 100mph, I suppose it could cover either suburban Class 150ish or inter-urban Class 158ish DMU's.

asylumxl · 17 Jun 2013

GNERman said:
Not what my literature says...!

Pacesetter - 1/3 and 2/3 doors, 23m in length and, with the proposal of 100mph, I suppose it could cover either suburban Class 150ish or inter-urban Class 158ish DMU's.

I could have it the wrong way round but I do believe the Pulsar was 23m.

GNERman · 17 Jun 2013

I never really saw any information on the Pulsar, so i'm not sure, most of the info was around the Polaris with the original GC proposal, then Alliance Rail and their bid for Polaris as HST2...

ash39 · 17 Jun 2013

dmspastor said:
From my experience with chinese trains,they are:
faster ,ON-TIME, all seat are in right direction and much more comfortable,station amazing passanger flow to get into/from train.

This amused me. What happens when the train runs on a service that involves reversing? :lol:

Bradford Interchange or Castleford in West Yorkshire alone. Everyone sitting backwards doesn't sound too appealing!

Plus the other two points are probably more to do with infrastructure and etiquette than the rolling stock. Their railways are probably newer than ours, and I'm almost certain there isn't a massive unruly scramble to get on a train before everyone who wants to alight has done like in this country (really annoys me that)

GNERman · 17 Jun 2013

ash39 said:
This amused me. What happens when the train runs on a service that involves reversing?

The seats flip back like on trams... :lol:

dmspastor · 18 Jun 2013

route:oxford said:
The trouble with having all seating in the "right" direction is that there are a few people out there who don't like to sit opposite to the direction of travel - even though it is the safest way to travel.

I think(but i am not 100% sure) , you can ask to sit in opposite direction as I saw to pair of chair in opposite direction in one carriage.

ash39 said:
This amused me. What happens when the train runs on a service that involves reversing? Bradford Interchange or Castleford in West Yorkshire alone. Everyone sitting backwards doesn't sound too appealing!

Well, I admit ... when I was China, I was wondering too, but then we arrived to our destination and almost all people left train i saw lady who flip chairs in opposite direction ,so "all seat are in right direction" again. I was really surprised and I looked like little boy with WOOOOW face, shocked by amazing trick (which in reality was a very simple trick)

bolli · 18 Jun 2013

GNERman said:
The seats flip back like on trams...

Or like such?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oevzEWAuPE

pemma · 18 Jun 2013

asylumxl said:
Pacesetter = 20m carriages with 1/4 and 3/4 doors.
Pulsar = 23m carriages with 1/4 and 3/4 doors or end doors

The Pacesetter was equivalent to the 15x series and the Pulsar was more equivelant to the 16x/17x.

There was someone from CSRE UK who used to post on here and he claimed the Pulsar was more of a class 14x or 150 replacement whereas the Pacesetter would have corridor connectors and be better suited to running in longer formations.

asylumxl · 18 Jun 2013

jcollins said:
There was someone from CSRE UK who used to post on here and he claimed the Pulsar was more of a class 14x or 150 replacement whereas the Pacesetter would have corridor connectors and be better suited to running in longer formations.

Well I think since they were modular designs they would be available in a variety of configurations.

Pacesetter I believe is a reference to the Pacers and was meant to be their replacement.

pemma · 18 Jun 2013

asylumxl said:
Pacesetter I believe is a reference to the Pacers and was meant to be their replacement.

That's exactly the thing the CSRE UK person said was an incorrect assumption. The term 'Pacemaker' was used because of speed/acceleration the train offered and the name sounding similar to Pacer was just coincidence.

Rail Magazine said:
Polaris 125mph Intercity
Pacemaker 100mph Inter-regional
Pulsar 75mph Commuter

http://www.railmagazine.com/archive/

Xenophon PCDGS · 18 Jun 2013

WatcherZero said:
Of their three models on offer CSRE claimed they had a deal to deliver prototypes of two of the classes to the UK to get some non-passenger carrying running experience/proof of concept, Northern was one of those rumoured to be supporting their trial alongside Alliance (though neither operator was ever named). However the shupping of the units never materialised.

Was there also an EMU version of the Polaris train said to be available ?

swt_passenger · 18 Jun 2013

jcollins said:
There was someone from CSRE UK who used to post on here ...

That was something that really made me wonder about their credibility.

I've never heard of any of the other mainstream manufacturers signing up to internet forums like this one to market their products.

Perhaps he thought that support from rail fans would force DfT/TOCs/ROSCOS into submission...

pemma · 18 Jun 2013

Paul Sidorczuk said:
Was there also an EMU version of the Polaris train said to be available ?

Yes and apparently it was offered to Merseytravel as potential class 507/8 replacement.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

swt_passenger said:
Perhaps he thought that support from rail fans would force DfT/TOCs/ROSCOS into submission...

Which they would then start on just after finalising an order of new loco-haul trains for XC and Virgin's Voyager routes :roll:

asylumxl · 18 Jun 2013

jcollins said:
That's exactly the thing the CSRE UK person said was an incorrect assumption. The term 'Pacemaker' was used because of speed/acceleration the train offered and the name sounding similar to Pacer was just coincidence.

Perhaps I have them the wrong way round. I believe it was original called the Pacemaker by the Chinese until they found out what that was in English.

anthony263 · 18 Jun 2013

asylumxl said:
Perhaps I have them the wrong way round. I believe it was original called the Pacemaker by the Chinese until they found out what that was in English.

You are correct. Also Rail magazine did do an article on CSRE. I did read they were looking at setting up a UK facility.
That Go-Op open acess operator who want to run a Yeovil to Oxford service were supposed to be looking at ordering from CSRE. I wouldnt be too surprised if CSRE has already made an offer to the Welsh government to build brand new units giving them an order which can show the UK government and the Rosco's etc that CSRE can build decent units.

Lets face it CSRE would have to be really bad to be worse than Bombardier

Xenophon PCDGS · 19 Jun 2013

bolli said:
Or like such?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oevzEWAuPE

Quite an interesting idea. What type of securing mechanism is used ?

junglejames · 19 Jun 2013

asylumxl said:
How do you come to this conclusion?

Chinese heavy industry cannot be compared to cheap electronic devices.

Besides, whatever you posted the reply from is quite probably majority Chinese parts.

You couldnt be more right. My laptop which I type this with is made in China.

Oh, and my laptop is utter crap.

So yes, just because people may be using chinese goods right now, doesnt mean to say it is good.
And yes, CHEAP chinese heavy industry can be compared to cheap electronic devices.
Its about time we started paying fair prices. Not going down the cheap crap route all the time. All we are doing is killing off our own industry.
Anyway, even the chinese dont like chinese designed trains. They prefer to copy European or Japanese trains.
Nobody was interested in this chinese crap except for Northern (at one point) and Alliance. But there was never really going to be any orders. Just look at the CSRE website. It was cheap and nasty, and never filled you with confidence. Even my dad had to laugh when they resorted to advertising a list of rolling stock prices on the back of RAIL Magazine.

I believe CSRE was run by some British people? Hell bent on killing off the rail industry with some absolute rubbish (only NZ have ordered chinese designed and built trains, and that was a nightmare). They should be ashamed of themselves, and I hope they have since run back to china and left us alone.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

mwmbwls said:
The New Zealanders re-ordered 20 more of their heavy goods DL class.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=m-ocnyy8Y_s
So they must be happy with the logistics support chain.

Yes, because they needed extra locos. Best to keep a simple fleet. But its well known they were crap upon arrival. Obviously NZ thought it best to keep fixing crap (in the hope they could eventually make them reliable) than ordering a totally different type.

asylumxl · 19 Jun 2013

The Aussies ordered locos from CSR and they worked fine from the outset, exceeding the Aussies expectations.

Pumbaa · 19 Jun 2013

@junglejames - if modern day and the future upsets you so much, feel free to bugger off back to the Stone Age. I doubt you shall be missed. Your anti-change anti-everything most others consider fit for purpose is just boring.

junglejames · 19 Jun 2013

asylumxl said:
The Aussies ordered locos from CSR and they worked fine from the outset, exceeding the Aussies expectations.

Well, every once in a while. Perhaps they will fall apart sooner.
We need to start ordering things at fair prices, and not from countries that are so far removed from a fair, free country

asylumxl · 19 Jun 2013

junglejames said:
Well, every once in a while. Perhaps they will fall apart sooner.
We need to start ordering things at fair prices, and not from countries that are so far removed from a fair, free country

And the UK is? The EU? Things are far better hidden here.

They may fall apart, but it's unlikely. Chances are though they'll be more reliable than any Bombardier products.

Should we order from Derby then? Do they charge fair prices for their regurgitated AdTranz designs? If that was the case you think they'd have won the Thameslink contract

.

RobShipway · 19 Jun 2013

asylumxl said:
And the UK is? The EU? Things are far better hidden here.

They may fall apart, but it's unlikely. Chances are though they'll be more reliable than any Bombardier products.

Should we order from Derby then? Do they charge fair prices for their regurgitated AdTranz designs? If that was the case you think they'd have won the Thameslink contract .

I think for some, it is a case of keeping those in the train manufacturing jobs in this country busy and in work as more contracts that the likes of Bombardier who at the moment is the only trains manufacturer building anything in the UK loose, the more prospect there is of redundancies in Derby.

However, just like the Army units we cannot keep things going forever and you have to think about reducing costs to what can be afforded.

At the moment you have the likes of Hitachi, that are going to be building trains in this country soon, seeming doing so at affordable prices. You have Siemens building trains at various plants within Germany and the EU countries.

You also have Alstom who are mostly based in France I believe, but they too also used to have the MCW factory in the West Midlands where the original Pendolino coaches where built. But, as they had no more orders to fill in this country they sold up and believe the site has since been demolished??

The more companies that move here to build trains the better, as that will mean the more competitive the prices and the better the quality the trains will be as well in the long term for the travellers to use.

rebmcr · 20 Jun 2013

asylumxl said:
They may fall apart, but it's unlikely. Chances are though they'll be more reliable than any Bombardier products.

If you have to compare with Bombardier...

asylumxl · 20 Jun 2013

rebmcr said:
If you have to compare with Bombardier...

It was more an attack on Bombardier's shoddy quality control.

Invincibles · 20 Jun 2013

junglejames said:
Well, every once in a while. Perhaps they will fall apart sooner.
We need to start ordering things at fair prices, and not from countries that are so far removed from a fair, free country

It seems you have some pretty strong stereotypes that are completely at odss with reality.

It might have escaped your attention but the Chinese high speed network runs brilliantly, with a mixture of fast and slow(er) trains running all over the country with no notable problems at all. Nothing about that is shoddily put together, and nothing about it would be better if it was built in England.

There can be little doubt that wages in China are lower than the UK, but so are the costs of living, and so are the expectations. I despair at some of the things people in the UK feel they could not possibly be expected to live without.

If there is a way to get a better quality product, for a lower price, and have the UK railways running more efficiently and better serving the passenger then we should take it. Not just award contracts to our own despite their lack of suitability and competitiveness.

edwin_m · 20 Jun 2013

Invincibles said:
It might have escaped your attention but the Chinese high speed network runs brilliantly, with a mixture of fast and slow(er) trains running all over the country with no notable problems at all. Nothing about that is shoddily put together, and nothing about it would be better if it was built in England.

I don't think saying that helps your case much, if you consider the causes of, and the reaction to, the Wenzhou train collision. We still don't have the full story but it appears to have been a wrong-side failure in an item of signalling equipment - something that has never happened in the Western equivalent system as far as I know, and which signalling systems have been designed to avoid for over 100 years. The authorities tried unsuccessfully to suppress the seriousness of the accident.

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

I'm not saying that this condemns the entire Chinese rail industry but it certainly leaves a nasty taste and makes it more difficult for them to be credible in world markets.

Geezertronic · 20 Jun 2013

Robbies said:
You also have Alstom who are mostly based in France I believe, but they too also used to have the MCW factory in the West Midlands where the original Pendolino coaches where built. But, as they had no more orders to fill in this country they sold up and believe the site has since been demolished??

I stand to be corrected but I believe the original 390 sets were assembled not built in the West Midlands - assembled from the parts shipped in from abroad

Invincibles · 20 Jun 2013

edwin_m said:
I don't think saying that helps your case much, if you consider the causes of, and the reaction to, the Wenzhou train collision. We still don't have the full story but it appears to have been a wrong-side failure in an item of signalling equipment - something that has never happened in the Western equivalent system as far as I know, and which signalling systems have been designed to avoid for over 100 years. The authorities tried unsuccessfully to suppress the seriousness of the accident.

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

I'm not saying that this condemns the entire Chinese rail industry but it certainly leaves a nasty taste and makes it more difficult for them to be credible in world markets.

Point taken, that accident did showcase the bad side of Chinese industry.

Generally speaking the quality of Chinese goods for export is higher than that which is consumed domestically, to the point I am often taking things that were made in China back to China from the UK for friends who do not want to buy the Chinese equivalent.

I think we would need to be careful with quality control, but I do not think that is a problem that could not be solved.

asylumxl · 20 Jun 2013

edwin_m said:
I don't think saying that helps your case much, if you consider the causes of, and the reaction to, the Wenzhou train collision. We still don't have the full story but it appears to have been a wrong-side failure in an item of signalling equipment - something that has never happened in the Western equivalent system as far as I know, and which signalling systems have been designed to avoid for over 100 years. The authorities tried unsuccessfully to suppress the seriousness of the accident.

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

I'm not saying that this condemns the entire Chinese rail industry but it certainly leaves a nasty taste and makes it more difficult for them to be credible in world markets.

I wouldn't believe the conclusion they came to. Anyone they blamed and fired were just scapegoats to make it appear as if they were doing something.

Polaris train not going ahead?

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member