Bombardier vs Siemens

Status
Not open for further replies.

SwindonPkwy

Member
Joined
2 Aug 2011
Messages
273
Location
Swindon.
Within this forum, I get the impression that railway 'insiders' much prefer Siemens over Bombardier. So, is it really true that Siemens universally makes better rolling stock or is there some superior Bombardier stock out there?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

David

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2005
Messages
5,104
Location
Scunthorpe
Siemens built rolling stock is a lot more relaible for a start, but the 185s in particular are overweight.

Another factor is that Bombardier stock seems to have a lot more teething problems as well, where as Siemens stock has pretty much ran without problems straight out of the factory.

While this isn't down to the builder, more the choice of engines used, but a 170 to me is a pathetic, gutless thing of a DMU, where as the 185 will comfortably cruise along, no matter what the line is like.
 

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
10,547
Location
Macclesfield
While this isn't down to the builder, more the choice of engines used, but a 170 to me is a pathetic, gutless thing of a DMU, where as the 185 will comfortably cruise along, no matter what the line is like.
I think that Bombardier have remedied to this problem with the 172s which I am pleased about as I like the Turbostars as offering as standard a regional DMU as possible at present, and of course the larger engines on the 185s make them thirsty beasts as well as being overweight.

I think that Siemens principal strength is that they build trains that work first time, whereas Bombardiers' approach to train construction seems to be on a much more trial and error basis: The 172s improving on the poor acceleration characteristics of the 170s, the Meridians improving on the poor interior design of the Voyagers. And Siemens' products seem to work straight out of the box, experience much fewer teething troubles, and don't start to fall apart and rattle within a couple of years.
 

317666

Established Member
Joined
4 Sep 2009
Messages
1,538
Location
Ely
I'd prefer Siemens by miles. Not only is the reliability and build quality higher, but from my experience their stock is more comfortable, and generally has a nicer atmosphere inside. The rattling on Turbostars does my head in.
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
9,416
The 380's had some heavy teething troubles but in general yes I believe Siemens are more reliable when new while Bombardier its more of an evolutionary process. Anaecdotally Siemens are also easier to order from, you tell them what you want and they give it to you whereas Bombardier tries to sell you what it thinks you should buy and is much less accomadating.
 

YorkshireBear

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2010
Messages
7,762
Dont have a particular like/dislike for either.

Love the 170s and the 222s, dont like the 185s. But EMUs i love the 333s 350s.

But lets remember how well the 380 worked out of the box.
 

Uzair

Member
Joined
15 Apr 2009
Messages
192
Location
London
I also prefer Siemens. Not travelled on many NR Siemens trains except the 444 and 450's, and the build quality is far superior than that of Bombardier built trains.
I find it appalling that most of the S stock trains in service at the moment are just always rattling. The build quality does not seem to be up to scratch.

Oh, weren't the Class 444 and 350/2 named the most reliable EMU's of 2011?

Aren't overweight bogies an issue with Siemens?
 
Last edited:

Nym

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2007
Messages
8,374
Location
Somewhere, not in London
I knew the 380 would come up, but a lot of systems on that where forced into service before being tested properly. But it does mean that the Thameslink stock will have less teathing problems as these where tested on the 380s.

I'm more of a Siemens fan, the're just a bit heavy.
 

TGV

Member
Joined
25 Nov 2005
Messages
732
Location
320km/h Voie Libre
I've only ever worked on Alstom stock, but I have no reason to complain. I can't comment on Siemens or Bombardier from an engineering point of view, but as a passenger, I prefer Bombardier interiors and comfort with Siemens reliability and build quality. Siemens seats never do it for me on long journey and Bombardier trains seem to rattle and creak too much in my experience. Personal preference though.
 

YorkshireBear

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2010
Messages
7,762
Alstom seats! Well the 175 seats are the comfiest seats i have ever been on from a personal persepective anyway. 185s i find very uncomfortable and voyagers i find in between.
Pacer seating the 2+2 stuff i actually find to be the comfiest on the network.

I think they all have weaknesses and advantages and it depends. The heavy siemens can be a big disadvantage as can be seen in the recent 185 cascade threads.
 

WestCoast

Established Member
Joined
19 Jun 2010
Messages
5,426
Location
Glasgow
Personally, I prefer Siemens over Bombardier, which tends to be influenced by their continental gauge Velaro, a firm favourite for me because of its general pleasantness, comfort and extensive facilities that Voyagers and Pendos lack so much!

Although, regional rail products of CAF and Stadtler that I have encountered have impressed me quite a lot, my favourite UK EMU 332/3 is a joint Siemens-CAF product. I wouldn't mind seeing more of these manufacturers in this country!

Alstom seats! Well the 175 seats are the comfiest seats i have ever been on from a personal persepective anyway. 185s i find very uncomfortable and voyagers i find in between.
Seating is highly subjective and train manufacturers choose a supplier for their seats anyway, I am sure this could be changed if deemed necessary.

185 seating is found across the Desiro range.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Pacer seating the 2+2 stuff i actually find to be the comfiest on the network.

Which isn't much use because the ride quality and noise levels aren't up to much! The 3+2 Pacer seating is the worst as well..:lol:
 
Last edited:

Chris125

Established Member
Joined
12 Nov 2009
Messages
2,583
Just as a reminder when comparing classes that not all aspects are specifically chosen by the builder, and sometimes they are built to the spec required even if thats not ideal.

That said, when you compare the fundamentals like the basic design the different classes are built on, build quality, initial and ongoing reliability, along with maintenance and customer care, the Desiro platform and Siemens comes out on top.

Its the whole package that really matters though - just look at Alsthom, whose 458's and 175's are finally revealing the good design hiding underneath all the other 'issues'...

Chris
 

Eagle

Established Member
Joined
20 Feb 2011
Messages
7,106
Location
Leamingrad / Blanfrancisco
Its the whole package that really matters though - just look at Alsthom, whose 458's and 175's are finally revealing the good design hiding underneath all the other 'issues'...
What about the 334s (which are basically AC 458s, without end doors)? Those took years to make fit for actually running in service. And ditto the 180s.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
11,594
Both companies have things to reccomend them.

For instance Bombardier is the only company that builds trains taht can use SP differentials at the present time, and Seimens one attempt to enter the diesel multiple unit market is a disaster.

(Cl185 being hugely overweight and thus unable to use any differentials at all)
 

Eagle

Established Member
Joined
20 Feb 2011
Messages
7,106
Location
Leamingrad / Blanfrancisco
Wouldn't really call the 185s disastrous; not optimum (they were aiming for a diesel 444 and missed) but they work well for where they were designed for—crossing the mountains.


I do think it is kind sad that every MU* ordered since privatization (and quite a few ordered before privatization) was built by one of Siemens, Alstom or Adtranz/Bombardier.


*note, the PPM isn't a MU
 

Chris125

Established Member
Joined
12 Nov 2009
Messages
2,583
To be fair to Siemen's the 185 was designed to meet a spec with the emphasis on acceleration, hill climbing and reliability rather than weight and fuel economy, at a time when oil prices were very different and electrification of any kind looked remote. Putting the weight issue to one side they seem to have been a successful design, if not the best.

Chris
 
Last edited:

Eagle

Established Member
Joined
20 Feb 2011
Messages
7,106
Location
Leamingrad / Blanfrancisco
I think the cascaded 185s would be perfect for Scotrail on their central-to-north interregional services. If done right could allow a cascade of 158s to someone to (say) replace 150s, which could then knock a few Pacers off the network.
 

David

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2005
Messages
5,104
Location
Scunthorpe
Both companies have things to reccomend them.

For instance Bombardier is the only company that builds trains taht can use SP differentials at the present time, and Seimens one attempt to enter the diesel multiple unit market is a disaster.

(Cl185 being hugely overweight and thus unable to use any differentials at all)
They haven't been a disaster though. While they can't use and SP or HST differerentials, they are still quicker between Doncaster and Sheffiels (HST diff.) and the Hope Valley (SP diff.) that 170s, which can use both! In fact, I'm going to suggest that despite the weight disadvantage, they are more economical with fule than the 170s simply because the Bombardier product has to be thrashed to high heaven just to try and maintain timings, where as the Siemens product is confortably cruising. However, this isn't a slight against either design though, but as I said in my original post in this topic, the choice of engine used.

I think the cascaded 185s would be perfect for Scotrail on their central-to-north interregional services. If done right could allow a cascade of 158s to someone to (say) replace 150s, which could then knock a few Pacers off the network.
Wrong topic! There's been a topic very recently where lot's of members have suggested the 185s would be perfect for the area where they live ....
 

Blindtraveler

Established Member
Joined
28 Feb 2011
Messages
7,748
Location
Nowhere near enough to a Pacer :(
t,e 185s, infact any diziro come to that are no use to me unless I want a heart attack - uncumfy seats being a prominent feature on all of them and unfit for purpose in some cases not to mention the many other things I just dont like about them - the unhelpfullness to the unemployment problems every diziro ever ordered has given for example.
The 185s I agree would rid the HML of the sound of cooling fans as the unsutable (for the run) 170s would be cascaded but other than that the penine units would be of most practicle value to a weight watchers meeting - something which despite my ever growing midsection I shall never go anywhere near! In ffence of there maker however the 333s and 332s are great and I only wish we had more.

Bombardia are brittish and although I agree theres problems at the beginning you only need to look at the reliabilitty of the 22x classes and the majoritty of 170s to see how well they can work although I do agree rattles can be a feature.

FYI the Oh dear it didnt work out of the box 380s are rather rattly too, just a warning.

I think if Bombardia were given a bespoke challenge e.g. The sleaper order if/when it gets placed there UK opperations if given time could perform. another thing worth noting is that things are bound to go wrong somewhere as trains today have far more to them than in the days of MK2/3/4s, sprinter or even networker/323 introduction.
 

Aictos

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
9,333
Dont have a particular like/dislike for either.

Love the 170s and the 222s, dont like the 185s. But EMUs i love the 333s 350s.

But lets remember how well the 380 worked out of the box.
But the 333s were not built by either though, they're CAF products ;)
 

Eagle

Established Member
Joined
20 Feb 2011
Messages
7,106
Location
Leamingrad / Blanfrancisco
Bombardia are brittish...
No. Just no. Bombardier Transportation is a German company (as was its predecessor Adtranz), subsidiary of a French Canadian conglomerate. Just because they own the last manufacturing plant in the UK since Alstom closed Washwood, doesn't make them British.

The 22x were built in Bruges.

And as for a bespoke challenge, how about the largest rolling-stock order in British history, the S-stock order of 1,395 vehicles, creating an entirely new generation of medium-distance subsurface tube stock out of their deep-level-based Movia design (such as '09 tube stock)?


But the 333s were not built by either though, they're CAF products ;)
The 332s and 333s were a joint Siemens and CAF production. CAF has never produced any British* rolling stock on its own (although it's on the shortlist for Crossrail, along with the three usual suspects and Hitachi). Their first solo foray into Britain will be the Edinburgh trams.

*they have produced rolling stock for the UK, namely the NIR 3000s.
 
Last edited:

notadriver

Established Member
Joined
1 Oct 2010
Messages
3,358
Apparently high powered DMUs such as Voyagers and 185s emit the most co2. On the other hand an older HST is very green by comparison.
 

MidnightFlyer

Veteran Member
Joined
16 May 2010
Messages
12,846
I prefer Siemens from a personal level, I don't know enough to comment about the engineering aspects of them.

Also, Bombardier are NOT British, as Eagle I think said, they are Germans that are a subsidiary of French Canadians...
 

Blindtraveler

Established Member
Joined
28 Feb 2011
Messages
7,748
Location
Nowhere near enough to a Pacer :(
first I should have been clearier o Bombardia - I ment that the majority of stuff for the UK is done in there brittish opperations.

The S stock I think personally is a bit unfare as they dont have the experience there Europian plants do on metro systems.

As to unfit for purpose comments - 3 plus 2 seating designed for commuting on long distance SWT work? Seating in 185s and lack of luggage space? i woant however blame them for the units being to short, thats DFTs problem.
 

Schnellzug

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2011
Messages
2,926
Location
Evercreech Junction
As to unfit for purpose comments - 3 plus 2 seating designed for commuting on long distance SWT work? Seating in 185s and lack of luggage space? i woant however blame them for the units being to short, thats DFTs problem.
That's hardly a shortcoming by the manufacturer, is it? They were specified like that by the customer for commuter work. If they're being used inappropriately, that's the fault of multi-award winning South West Trains. And aren't the Seats chosen by the customer rather than the manufacturer? Anyway, it's all subjective, and even if they did come as a fundamental part of the design would that in itself make them unfit for purpose?
 

aformeruser

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
30,637
Siemens built rolling stock is a lot more relaible for a start, but the 185s in particular are overweight.
Some of the lines SWT use Desiros on had to have track work done to allow heavier trains to operate.

the 185 will comfortably cruise along, no matter what the line is like.
The 185 runs less smoothly than the 156 and 158.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
however the 333s and 332s are great and I only wish we had more.
The 332s and 333s were a joint project between Siemens and CAF (Construcciones y Auxiliar de Ferrocarriles) built in Zaragoza at a CAF site but maintained by Siemens.

Saying they were a Siemens build it like saying the original Pendolinos were an Italian build.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top