• 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!

Fresh hopes for Bombardier and XC

Status
Not open for further replies.

DXC

Member
Joined
8 Sep 2010
Messages
17
From Guardian online:

Bombardier could be thrown a lifeline by the Department for Transport (DfT) with a £120m train order that would preserve hundreds of jobs at the manufacturer's Derby plant.

The DfT is giving serious consideration to a proposal that would give the Canadian group breathing space in plans to axe more than 1,400 jobs. If Bombardier receives the green light, it is understood that posts for hundreds of design engineers, currently under threat, would be saved. It is understood that hundreds more jobs would be safeguarded in the production process, although industry sources were unable to specify exact numbers for the whole contract.

The transport secretary, Philip Hammond, has come under pressure to assist Bombardier after his department selected Siemens of Germany as preferred bidder for a £1.4bn contract to build 1,200 new trains for the London Thameslink route, with Bombardier in second place. Bombardier is cutting nearly half its 3,000-strong workforce in response, prompting a political storm that saw Hammond, Siemens and Bombardier called before MPs at the Transport select committee last week.

Under the proposal, Britain's last remaining train factory would build new electric-powered carriages for Voyager diesel fleets used by the CrossCountry franchise that operates from Penzance to Aberdeen. Sources familiar with the plan said it could be worth around £120m, with about 57 carriages required.

Colin Walton, chairman of Bombardier Transportation UK, said: "We very much welcome that the DfT is looking at a proposal to add electric power cars to the Voyager fleets and Bombardier will be pleased to participate in the development of a business case for this project." Under the refit plan, the 57 Voyager trains used by CrossCountry would receive an additional carriage fitted with a pantograph, which is attached to the roof of a train and draws down electricity from overhead lines. This would allow the diesel-powered trains to operate with electric power on electrified parts of the rail network, cutting financial costs, limiting carbon dioxide emissions and boosting capacity.

A DfT spokesperson said: "The DfT is looking into the possibility of upgrading the existing fleet of diesel CrossCountry Voyager trains by adding an additional carriage with a pantograph. This would enable the upgraded train to run using electric power provided by the overhead lines. We have asked the industry to lead a short initial study into whether this is technically feasible and whether there would be a good business case, which provided value for money."

The proposal could bring further revenue, and positive job news, if Bombardier wins more work to refit the Voyager and Meridian trains operated by the Virgin Trains and East Midlands Trains franchises. However, discussions over this would have to be conducted separately. It is understood that Hammond is keen to preserve Bombardier's high-value manufacturing jobs, led by the design engineers who will be key to bidding for future train contracts if the Derby factory survives.

Bombardier is conducting a review of its UK business in the wake of the Thameslink decision, which the government is adamant will not be reversed. The Canadian group is desperate for new work in Derby, with its last major contract, for London Underground, running out in 2014. The new Voyager trains could be designed and built between 2012 and 2013, allowing Bombardier to mitigate immediate lay-off plans.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

HYPODERMIC

Member
Joined
14 Feb 2011
Messages
87
Location
Chingford
I don't really understanding the reasoning behind this new obsession with bi-mode.

It makes some savings, I know, but is it really that significant. If they're going to splurge £120, can't we please just have more extra carriages instead? I know this plan will apparently grant *some* extra capacity, but I bet we'd get more for our money if they dropped the power car bit.
 

Minilad

Established Member
Joined
26 Feb 2011
Messages
4,343
Location
Anywhere B link goes
I don't really understanding the reasoning behind this new obsession with bi-mode.

It makes some savings, I know, but is it really that significant. If they're going to splurge £120, can't we please just have more extra carriages instead? I know this plan will apparently grant *some* extra capacity, but I bet we'd get more for our money if they dropped the power car bit.

I know Voyagers are cheap and plastic but I didn't know they were that cheap ;)
120m for 57 coaches does seem on the high side. Unless that includes all the testing and design costs too
 

DXC

Member
Joined
8 Sep 2010
Messages
17
Personally i think it smacks of a "token u-turnish gesture" to Bombardier after all the the kick off over the thameslink contract.

I'm just goin to wait and see if they actually DO find it cost effective or it quietly gets shelved after a year or so when the uproar fades away??:roll:

Or am i being too cynical?? ;)
 

All Line Rover

Established Member
Joined
17 Feb 2011
Messages
5,222
I have a number of opinions about this.

Opinion 1: The DfT are only doing this to counteract criticism surrounding the Thameslink order, in the hope of "saving" (:roll:) jobs at Bombardier. If this is the main reason for this order, it is a complete waste of money!

Opinion 2: Instead of wasting money on this, the DfT should be investing in a new fleet of Pendolinos for the InterCity West Coast Franchise (aka Virgin Trains ;)) - a franchise which should include the Manchester to Scotland route. All of the Voyagers (perhaps with the exception of London to Holyhead) could then be given to CrossCountry. Voyagers are horrid trains - we don't need any more of them!!! :| They are particularly horrid when they are over 80% full, so if CrossCountry had additional units, people's opinion of Voyagers may improve somewhat.

Opinion 3: Whilst a new order of Pendolinos would be a nice idea, giving all those Voyagers to CrossCountry would significantly increase emissions. Not good! :| So perhaps converting a number of CrossCountry Voyagers to bi-mode trains - whilst lengthening them at the same time - would be a good idea. Even so, what about all those sections of the CrossCountry network that are not electrified? And what about Virgin, who will still have a large fleet of heavily-polluting Voyagers?

Opinion 4: I believe this one to be the best option of all! :D Have a new order of Pendolinos to replace all Voyagers (with the exception of London to Holyhead) on the new InterCity West Coast franchise - which will include the Manchester to Scotland route. Give all the Voyagers to CrossCountry, and have both these "new" and current CrossCountry Voyagers lengthened and converted to bi-mode. Our pollution and capacity problems have been solved for the next 50 years! :lol: (Yes it would be expensive, but the government in the country never seem to have heard of the phrase: "Investment in national infrastructure." :roll:)

I also don't understand how 57 carriages can cost £120m! :shock:
 

Fincra5

Established Member
Joined
6 Jun 2009
Messages
2,489
To be fair the Panto car does make sense. Take the VT ones which run under wires all the way from Birmingham to Scotland. Such a waste having them using diesil power.
 

All Line Rover

Established Member
Joined
17 Feb 2011
Messages
5,222
I know Voyagers are cheap and plastic but I didn't know they were that cheap ;)

Mark my words - those Voyagers (and Pendolinos) will fall apart within 20 years. They're so plasticy and rattly. I do like Pendolinos, but the build quality is very shoddy.

125's and 225's and much better built - even though they were built by the British! :shock:
 

Oswyntail

Established Member
Joined
23 May 2009
Messages
4,183
Location
Yorkshire
This sounds like kite-flying from the dear old Grauniad, part of the Derby campaign. Take an idea that has been floated for a couple of years and build it up into a "possibility" which they hope will become a rod to beat the Governments back. All the article says really is that a feasibility study has been mooted - the rest is fantasy - and I doubt such a study would report true value for money. I would guess that a huge proportion of the Voyagers' mileage is away from wires, so that adds costs of transporting unused equipment for relatively little gain. Extra coaches, though less glamorous, would be better,
 

HYPODERMIC

Member
Joined
14 Feb 2011
Messages
87
Location
Chingford
I know Voyagers are cheap and plastic but I didn't know they were that cheap ;)
Whoops! You're right - I meant £120 per carriage. ;)

I love the idea to instead spend the money on Pendolinos for Manchester-Scotland, but I can't see it happening anytime this decade. I'd imagine that the DfT is quite content with the cheap fix they've got going now - 'regional' DMUs running an InterCity route and nobody really noticing!
 

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
11,063
Location
Macclesfield
This one order is expected to save the posts of "hundreds of design engineers"? Just how big a team does it take for the design and development one new design of carriage? :shock:

I see that Project Thor has now been scaled back to about half its' original proposed order size. It's a shame that only one pantograph car would be added to each of XCs' Voyagers, the five car 221s at least should have two additional carriages added, where the additional diesel engined carriage compared to a 220 should mean that the additional weight of two extra trailers shouldn't have such a big effect on performance.

And surely there is a bigger case for adding pantograph cars to Virgins' 221s that run journeys that are entirely are nearly entirely completely under the wires than XCs' that see more time operating away from the wires than on them (in lieu of electrification projects such as the MML)? All of the 220 and 221 fleet should be lengthened at the same time and then, if West Coast do procure more Pendolinos then their 221s can go to XC without creating a diesel only sub-fleet.

This idea has now been rumbling on for months, with no visible signs of progress in the project. For christs' sake stop talking about it and just get on and do it, and for that matter do it properly and not just a half-arsed, minimum amount of work required, effort.
 

Wyvern

Established Member
Joined
27 Oct 2009
Messages
1,573
The Voyagers are/were designed and built in Belgium anyway weren't they?
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,418
A single unpowered coach added to all units would help a great deal with XC capacity issues, but presumably a 220 still couldn't be made 6 car, as there'd be insufficient diesel power? Also, if XC had a mix of 5 and 6 car units, how would this affect running in multiple? 6+6 would be extremely difficult due to current infrastructure limitations, 5+5 would be OK as now, but what about 5+6?


However if they were to fit a pantograph shouldn't they fit third rail shoe gear as well? Problem there is that the shoes would have to be fitted along the whole train, and the inside frame bogies can't take a normal shoebeam as far as I can see.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,663
Location
Redcar
I like the way that the Guardian 'misses' that 1200 jobs were going even if Thameslink had been won :roll:

I think it's a good idea any extra capacity on XC is a good thing to be honest, though I think it would make sense to include VT's Voyagers so we can hopefully reform that 2-car 221 into a 5-car unit (assuming they all get one panto car) and can avoid running diesels between Birmingham - Scotland.

I would guess the price of £120m is the all in price so includes R&D and setting up production line as well as any other foreseeable costs. Otherwise it does seem mighty steep for just 57 carriages.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/sep/11/bombardier-120m-crosscountry-trains-deal - for the 222s too? Would that mean every MML service had to stop at Luton/Bedford to change "power" types?

I would guess that a huge proportion of the Voyagers' mileage is away from wires, so that adds costs of transporting unused equipment for relatively little gain. Extra coaches, though less glamorous, would be better,

I don't know the figures.

But Glasgow - York/Doncaster is wired, Manchester to Coventry is wired, that must make up a decent proportion. Maybe not half though.

I agree about extra coaches, all too often we need something that "stands out" to justify expenditure - hence some of the small classes that have been built in the past - there's no "story" in "fifty new coaches built" but there may be in "thirty exciting new pantograph coaches are built" - I'm not saying its right of course.

This one order is expected to save the posts of "hundreds of design engineers"? Just how big a team does it take for the design and development one new design of carriage? :shock:

Well, considering the carriages have to be compatible with the existing Voyager coaches, you'd think most of the design was already done - certainly no need for a blank sheet of paper...

To be fair the Panto car does make sense. Take the VT ones which run under wires all the way from Birmingham to Scotland. Such a waste having them using diesil power.

I agree. The problem with this argument is that I'd like the capacity of additional Voyagers on most XC services - giving the VT ones a pantograph to run Birmingham - Glasgow/Edinburgh won't make much difference to XC (whereas giving XC 20x 5 car Voyagers from Virgin would).
 

Schnellzug

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2011
Messages
2,926
Location
Evercreech Junction
I don't really understanding the reasoning behind this new obsession with bi-mode.

It makes some savings, I know, but is it really that significant. If they're going to splurge £120, can't we please just have more extra carriages instead? I know this plan will apparently grant *some* extra capacity, but I bet we'd get more for our money if they dropped the power car bit.

Surely it is more sensible than running diesels for hundreds of miles under the wires? Would be more sensible, though, to order them for Virgin (or whoever gets West coast), sicne that's where by far the most under-the-wires mileage is, although they might be useful on Birmingham-Manchester & York-Edinburgh.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
I would guess the price of £120m is the all in price so includes R&D and setting up production line as well as any other foreseeable costs. Otherwise it does seem mighty steep for just 57 carriages.

I presume so - in which case I'd hope they build more centre coaches (if a lot of that £120m is set up costs, meaning the marginal unit cost is lower, once you set the production line up).

If Voyagers were all minimum six coaches long then I bet the complaints will go down considerably
 

DXC

Member
Joined
8 Sep 2010
Messages
17
All of the 220 and 221 fleet should be lengthened at the same time and then, if West Coast do procure more Pendolinos then their 221s can go to XC without creating a diesel only sub-fleet.

This idea has now been rumbling on for months, with no visible signs of progress in the project. For christs' sake stop talking about it and just get on and do it, and for that matter do it properly and not just a half-arsed, minimum amount of work required, effort.

Agreed!!:idea:<:D
 

Schnellzug

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2011
Messages
2,926
Location
Evercreech Junction
Again, I can't help wondering if the DfT and the Treasury and all the rest of the Government weren't involved, and it was just down to the manufacturers and the operators (like with airliners), whether things might be got on with a little more quickly and a little less expensively, although this may well be a heretical view, of course ...
 

HYPODERMIC

Member
Joined
14 Feb 2011
Messages
87
Location
Chingford
Surely it is more sensible than running diesels for hundreds of miles under the wires? Would be more sensible, though, to order them for Virgin (or whoever gets West coast), sicne that's where by far the most under-the-wires mileage is, although they might be useful on Birmingham-Manchester & York-Edinburgh.
Ah, now I do agree with the case for Birmingham-Scotland services going bi-mode. It's not the principle of bi-mode that bothers me, it's the execution of it - I'd rather see the full GWML electrified and have proper electric trains, for example.

And here, I'd rather see bi-mode on the routes that make the best use of it; XC strikes me as a bit of a naff choice, whereas VT BHM-GLC services appear to be a much wiser one.

That said, I'd still rather see the capacity issues solved first. If bi-mode can release units to extend others, fantastic - if not, spend the money on plain and simple carriages.
 

anthony263

Established Member
Joined
19 Aug 2008
Messages
6,532
Location
South Wales
Maybe the DFT should have also ordered those 11, 4 carriage class 172's for FGW to displace the class 158's to work the Cardiff - Taunton & Weymouth - Great Malvern services allowing the class 150's to be used elsewhere with FGW or some could then be sent to ATW/Northern
 

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
6,550
Location
UK
Seems good, we generally get along ok with bi mode 22X classes here, it adds some extra capacity to XC ( no disabled toilet in this carriage please :) ) it allows pantograph working. and if sucsessful could be put onto Virgins Voyagers. and hopefully EMT's meridians (how different are meridian and voyager coaches mechanically, apart from tilt? could they even put a voyager coach in a meridian rake?
 

junglejames

Established Member
Joined
8 Dec 2010
Messages
2,069
I don't really understanding the reasoning behind this new obsession with bi-mode.

It makes some savings, I know, but is it really that significant. If they're going to splurge £120, can't we please just have more extra carriages instead? I know this plan will apparently grant *some* extra capacity, but I bet we'd get more for our money if they dropped the power car bit.

Considering we arent going to get rid of the voyagers anytime soon, this surely does need to be done. Coventry to Manchester, and South of York to Edinburgh and Glasgow, all underneath the wires. Its daft.
Of course, if you were to scrap the voyagers, then bi mode wouldnt be needed, as a better plan would be able to be drawn up (which we know it wouldnt be anyway).

At least we know they are capable of 125 on diesel, and no doubt on electric as well. The IEP bi modes arent capable of 125 on diesel, as far as i know.
 

Nym

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2007
Messages
9,171
Location
Somewhere, not in London
Electrically and mechanically quite different.

They should also look at combining this project up with wiring the MML and then scrapping the idea of new bi-mode units too though.

Bi Mode SET, IEP whatever should be scrapped in lieu of the conversion of the 22x fleet to electrodiesel, ordering additional 390s for ICWC to displace 221s, and electrification of the MML to displace all 222 stock, and 5 car units being fitted with two panto/transformer cars, with 4 car units receiving one or two panto/transformer cars. Nice length increases and no need for the R&D for a new Bi-Mode unit.

Also, the maths of doing the above fits for HST retirement in 10 years.

And like I said before, greatly reduce the diesel powered pool of LDPE passenger stock that may be made redundant by continuing electrification (that should be done).

In 20 or 30 years when the voyagers are being scrapped, all mainline routes in the UK should be electrified, so the only diesels will be branch line and inter-reigonal services.

All the GWML routes, including diversions via Cheltenham
All of XC
All of the ECML, including Hull Paragon, Lincoln (if on route) etc.
All of the MML up to Leeds and York
Edinburgh - Aberdeen, Inverness
Proberbly the Chiltern Mainline
Crewe - Holyhead & Llandudno
Chester - Warrington
TPE North
Cardiff Valleys
Marshlink & Southern Routes
CLC Route
Suburban routes around Manchester, Liverpool and Leeds.

All acceivable in the next 30 years methinks.

So any more new LDPE Passenger stock will be electric, end of...
 
Last edited:

IanXC

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
18 Dec 2009
Messages
6,338
Alternatively following MML electrification, ed 222s would be very usefull to TPE. The capacity is needed, would help mainline pathing, and would create a useful cascade.

As I type this I'm on my second standing room only TPE service today, one was a 185, the other 2x 170! (and on Sunday!)
 

junglejames

Established Member
Joined
8 Dec 2010
Messages
2,069
And here, I'd rather see bi-mode on the routes that make the best use of it; XC strikes me as a bit of a naff choice, whereas VT BHM-GLC services appear to be a much wiser one.

Going by your argument, Birmingham to Glasgow/ Edinburgh would also be a naff choice, as its 100% wired. New electric trains should be built for this route as well.
XC seems one of the best options for bi moding the voyagers. A large proportion of both diesel and under the wires running.
 

Nym

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2007
Messages
9,171
Location
Somewhere, not in London
Alternatively following MML electrification, ed 222s would be very usefull to TPE. The capacity is needed, would help mainline pathing, and would create a useful cascade.

As I type this I'm on my second standing room only TPE service today, one was a 185, the other 2x 170! (and on Sunday!)

Yes, but then what covers the GW Diesel routes then? The bi Mode IEP that we wouldn't need if the excess 22x units from the MML where sent that way.

TPE will be improving with the electrification of the TPE NW Routes, and Scottish Routes. And the 22x units are not really appropriate for the network core, especially in ED format, a 6 coach 22x has significantly less capacity than a 6 coach 185, or 17x...

TPE Runs it's N network as core + extentions, the stock needs to suit the core, that is inter-reigonal, hence using desiro stock.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
Alternatively following MML electrification, ed 222s would be very usefull to TPE. The capacity is needed, would help mainline pathing, and would create a useful cascade.

As I type this I'm on my second standing room only TPE service today, one was a 185, the other 2x 170! (and on Sunday!)

The twenty seven 222s would be about right to operate all TPE services through Leeds (reformed into five/six coach lengths) - that'd be a pretty neat fit
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Hull Trains = 4x 180
GC = 5x 180 + 3x HST
East Coast = 14x HST
EMT = 13x HSTs

Any chance more 22Xs could be built to replace at least some of these 39 trains whilst we are at it?
 

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
11,063
Location
Macclesfield
The twenty seven 222s would be about right to operate all TPE services through Leeds (reformed into five/six coach lengths) - that'd be a pretty neat fit
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Hull Trains = 4x 180
GC = 5x 180 + 3x HST
East Coast = 14x HST
EMT = 13x HSTs

Any chance more 22Xs could be built to replace at least some of these 39 trains whilst we are at it?
If electrification of the MML occured, then presumably enough new electric trains would be ordered to replace both the Meridians and the HSTs. As for the East Coast:

I mentioned in another thread recently that if the MML was electrified, and if East Coast could only procure a couple more electric sets from somewhere (90s and mark 3s or whatever), then the six 7-car 222s fitted with a pair of pantograph cars to make 9-car trains and the four 4-car 222/1s fitted with a pantograph car to make 5-car trains would be sufficient to operate East Coasts' off the wires services, with the nine car sets naturally on the longer distance Aberdeen/Inverness services.

That would leave seventeen 5-car 222s available for whoever wants them, be it TPE in a pure diesel form, or FGW/XC where they could be made bi-mode as seven car trains.

Whenever the IC225s need replacing, then if there have been no further electrification projects affecting the ECML then their really should be an order for 35/36 new electric trainsets, and if there has been further electrification (Leeds-York/Hull, possibly as part of Transpennine electrification, and to Aberdeen as an extension of Scotrails' current pro-active electrification policies) then around 40-42 electric sets would be about right, with only a little need for "off the wires" running (Inverness, Lincoln, Harrogate) at that point. Thirty sets with thirty one locos available to haul them is stretched too thin nowadays.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top