Why did TPE order Class 397 ('Nova 2') instead of more 80x series trains?

tasky · 28 Oct 2019

Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/tpe-class-397-nova-2-construction-and-updates.144812/

I have a question about these trains - why did TPE go for them instead of a Class 80x EMU (probably 801)? Given TPE has ordered Class 802s it seems like an interesting choice. Was it just down to the competitive tender or is there something I'm missing?

RailUK Forums

Chris125 · 28 Oct 2019

tasky said:
I have a question about these trains - why did TPE go for them instead of a Class 80x EMU (probably 801)? Given TPE has ordered Class 802s it seems like an interesting choice. Was it just down to the competitive tender or is there something I'm missing?

It seems CAF were promising significantly earlier delivery dates than Hitachi, alas they proved a tad optimistic...

LNW-GW Joint · 28 Oct 2019

tasky said:
I have a question about these trains - why did TPE go for them instead of a Class 80x EMU (probably 801)? Given TPE has ordered Class 802s it seems like an interesting choice. Was it just down to the competitive tender or is there something I'm missing?

Presumably price and promised timescale from CAF swung the balance - Hitachi could not deliver in time.
There were also options in the TPE franchise agreement to acquire more/longer EMUs when TP electrification was complete - now deferred indefinitely.
We will also soon find out which EMU design has been chosen by First Trenitalia for its West Coast requirements.
In other procurements First has preferred the Hitachi AT300.

tpjm · 28 Oct 2019

Chris125 said:
It seems CAF were promising significantly earlier delivery dates than Hitachi, alas they proved a tad optimistic...

Although CAF are somewhat later than expected, they are still ahead of Hitachi, who have not even delivered all of the 19 ordered units yet. Not a jibe at Hitachi - just a fact that they don't have the space in their production schedule to take on more work after the TPE 19 have been delivered.

Failed Unit · 29 Oct 2019

Any reason why (had delivery times being equal) that TPE could not have gone for a single fleet?

they must have created themselves an operational nightmare as it is. Although I guess 802s on Scarborough- Manchester won’t use the juice much.

CHAPS2034 · 29 Oct 2019

Failed Unit said:
Any reason why (had delivery times being equal) that TPE could not have gone for a single fleet?

they must have created themselves an operational nightmare as it is. Although I guess 802s on Scarborough- Manchester won’t use the juice much.

AFAIK the 802s will not be used on Scarboroughs but on Liverpool [LIV] - Newcastle [NCL] / Edinburgh [EDB], so a good deal of mileage under the wires.

plugwash · 29 Oct 2019

LNW-GW Joint said:
In other procurements First has preferred the Hitachi AT300.

Other than the ones ordered by the government as part of the intercity express program has anyone ordered an Electric only version of the 80x? I can't think of any.

a_c_skinner · 29 Oct 2019

In the end they will regret not being able to have all 802s.

Nick Ashwell · 29 Oct 2019

plugwash said:
Other than the ones ordered by the government as part of the intercity express program has anyone ordered an Electric only version of the 80x? I can't think of any.

First have for their East Coast Trains open access although they'll also have batteries

js1000 · 29 Oct 2019

Failed Unit said:
Any reason why (had delivery times being equal) that TPE could not have gone for a single fleet?

they must have created themselves an operational nightmare as it is. Although I guess 802s on Scarborough- Manchester won’t use the juice much.

Lead-in times. They wanted the new fleet in service as soon as possible and thought by splitting it between Hitachi and CAF this would speed up manufacture - although a rather optmistic and over-simplistic view to be honest.

Doomotron said:
I think the 3 fleets might have been done for later on. After TPE, all three fleets will have different uses. The 802s can join an existing fleet, the 397s can go to an electrified line, the Mark 5s could be used for spot-hirz or open-access work and the 68s can go to freight.

As Doomotron says I'd be surprised if TPE have 4 different trains in its fleet in 10 years time. I suspect we'll see it rationalised, probably with more 802s, as part of the next franchise and the 68s/Mk.5s and/or 397 palmed onto an open access operator.

Failed Unit · 29 Oct 2019

plugwash said:
Other than the ones ordered by the government as part of the intercity express program has anyone ordered an Electric only version of the 80x? I can't think of any.

East coast (LNER) have. I don’t think they were ordered by the government and they could have done something with the mk4s if this was more cost effective.

plugwash · 29 Oct 2019

Afaict the LNER 800s and 801s and the GWR 800s (GWR was also supposed to get 801s, but they were changed for 800s when the electrification was cut back) were all part of the original government-driven "Intercity express" program (that created the 80x series in the first place).

Nick Ashwell · 29 Oct 2019

Failed Unit said:
East coast (LNER) have. I don’t think they were ordered by the government and they could have done something with the mk4s if this was more cost effective.

They were all IEP ordered units

squizzler · 29 Oct 2019

Even if First had really wanted AT300 for all its franchisees, it still might be necessary to procure a small stud of alternative designs from time to time to demonstrate to Hitachi that, yes, they are prepared to buy other stuff if Hitachi take their eyes off the ball.

CAF have clearly developed good products that are getting traction in the market. SNCF is now getting CAF trains for its classic intercity routes and the Oaris design has had success in Scandinavia (Norway I think).

hwl · 30 Oct 2019

Nick Ashwell said:
They were all IEP ordered units

LNER are looking to place a circa 7-8 unit 10 car order outside IEP as an alternative to the VTEC plan of retaining 91+mk4 for the extra services post ECML upgrade which is what failed unit is referring to...

Nick Ashwell · 30 Oct 2019

hwl said:
LNER are looking to place a circa 7-8 unit 10 car order outside IEP as an alternative to the VTEC plan of retaining 91+mk4 for the extra services post ECML upgrade which is what failed unit is referring to...

But having intentions to do something is different to "have"

ExRes · 30 Oct 2019

hwl said:
LNER are looking to place a circa 7-8 unit 10 car order outside IEP as an alternative to the VTEC plan of retaining 91+mk4 for the extra services post ECML upgrade which is what failed unit is referring to...

If I recall correctly, they are only looking outside of IEP because the ludicrous rules force them to, if they require more IEPs then they should be able to simply go back to the original supplier and order some more of the same, job sorted and no idiotic delays or having to manage a different type to what they presently have

Bletchleyite · 30 Oct 2019

ExRes said:
If I recall correctly, they are only looking outside of IEP because the ludicrous rules force them to, if they require more IEPs then they should be able to simply go back to the original supplier and order some more of the same, job sorted and no idiotic delays or having to manage a different type to what they presently have

It's not hard to write a tender to end up with a specific, pre-decided outcome. People do it all the time. Re 397s, if TPE had wanted a Hitachi product for these it would similarly not have been hard to ensure that was specified in some way.

Failed Unit · 30 Oct 2019

Bletchleyite said:
It's not hard to write a tender to end up with a specific, pre-decided outcome. People do it all the time. Re 397s, if TPE had wanted a Hitachi product for these it would similarly not have been hard to ensure that was specified in some way.

wasn’t the delivery timescale the decider for these as well? Hitachi were honest and said they couldn’t to the order went to CAF. Now they can’t I wonder if they are wishing they had gone for the safe option with the later delivery.

hwl · 30 Oct 2019

ExRes said:
If I recall correctly, they are only looking outside of IEP because the ludicrous rules force them to, if they require more IEPs then they should be able to simply go back to the original supplier and order some more of the same, job sorted and no idiotic delays or having to manage a different type to what they presently have

IEP contract has no options hence it needs to be a separate tender and order like First have done with 802s.

BeHereNow · 30 Oct 2019

Northern announced the manufacturer of the new trains in January 2016after signing the Franchise Agreement in December 2015. The first trains entered passenger service on 1st July 2019.

TransPennine announced their new Hitachi trains in March 2016 after also signing the Franchise Agreement in December 2015. The first trains entered passenger service in September 2019.

TransPennine announced their new CAF trains in May 2016 after also signing the Franchise Agreement in December 2015. The first trains entered passenger service in August 2019.

61653 HTAFC · 30 Oct 2019

squizzler said:
Even if First had really wanted AT300 for all its franchisees, it still might be necessary to procure a small stud of alternative designs from time to time to demonstrate to Hitachi that, yes, they are prepared to buy other stuff if Hitachi take their eyes off the ball.

CAF have clearly developed good products that are getting traction in the market. SNCF is now getting CAF trains for its classic intercity routes and the Oaris design has had success in Scandinavia (Norway I think).

CAF's earlier products for the UK were all high-quality units which have turned out to be reliable (332 issues notwithstanding) and well received by passengers, so I doubt there were many alarm bells over ordering their stock. The suburban EMUs in use in Spain are also very solid and comfortable units.

That the 195s and 331s seem to have turned up with wheelsets made of plasticine has thrown a bit of a spanner in the works!

tasky · 30 Oct 2019

Thank you all, interesting stuff. I do like the look of the CAF trains, they look rather smart. I wonder if their acceleration performance can match an 802 though

Doomotron · 30 Oct 2019

tasky said:
Thank you all, interesting stuff. I do like the look of the CAF trains, they look rather smart. I wonder if their acceleration performance can match an 802 though

Probably, after all the 397s have no diesel motors and the Mark 5s are just coaches (and the 68s are quick off the line too).

tbtc · 30 Oct 2019

I think it was a poor decision that will cause us some problems in the longer term (e.g. the 397s could be the 180s of the 2030s - a small fleet that are too short for long distance high speed services but the 125mph specification means that they aren't suitable for cascading to slower services where their length would otherwise be more appropriate).

I take the point about ordering lots of different types of trains meaning they might get them sooner (in theory), but remember that TPE didn't need to order new trains for a specific date - they aren't running a legacy fleet like Northern (who needed the 195s in time to replace the Pacers/153s before the accessibility requirements kicked in). So it didn't matter so much to TPE that they had new trains so urgently - additional capacity is clearly needed (I have friends who commute from Sheffield to Manchester and colleagues who commute from Manchester/ Stockport to Sheffield, so I regularly hear the stories about three coach 185s...) but TPE weren't in anything like as desperate a position as Northern were - if it took until 2020 for the fleet to be delivered then they'd just carry on with modern accessible 185/350s on services in the meantime.

I appreciate that the WCML services are operationally separate, so there's less of an issue with a separate fleet, but I'd rather we had one big fleet of long distance high speed trains (capable of bi-mode operation) - but First have a habit of ordering awkward little fleets (175s, 180s etc).

Failed Unit · 31 Oct 2019

Although the West Coast fleet are operationally separate. They cover Manchester Airport, Edinburgh. So having the small fleet has lost the chance to move things around if things go wrong. On a silly but possible example is a unit arrives at Edinburgh low on fuel (or Manchester for that matter) it can be swapped with a WCML service.

Likewise they probably would have more maintenance spares then they would have needed with a single fleet, spares, training, bulk discount etc.

The ship has sailed. They didn’t know when they ordered delivery would be late. But I am sure this will be regretted operationally during the franchise duration.

yorkie · 31 Oct 2019

If anyone wishes to speculate on future uses for TPE's trains, please use the following thread: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...ee-fleets-when-tpe-are-done-with-them.194372/ , thanks

BeHereNow · 31 Oct 2019

tbtc said:
remember that TPE didn't need to order new trains for a specific date

When bidding they did need to fulfil the (what was originally) December 2017 timetable change though, which meant taking over the Northern stoppers. They also added in extra Newcastle trains over and above the ITT and needed a way to resource them without shortening trains.

Energy · 1 Nov 2019

CAF seem to be overoptimistic on delivery dates, the 195s, 331s and 397s are all late, are the delays on the 397s CAF's fault or just late entry to service?

221129 · 1 Nov 2019

Failed Unit said:
Although the West Coast fleet are operationally separate. They cover Manchester Airport, Edinburgh. So having the small fleet has lost the chance to move things around if things go wrong. On a silly but possible example is a unit arrives at Edinburgh low on fuel (or Manchester for that matter) it can be swapped with a WCML service.
.

Eh? This makes no sense at all.

Why did TPE order Class 397 ('Nova 2') instead of more 80x series trains?

Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Guest

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Forum Staff

Guest

Established Member

Established Member