Bombardier

[RAGNARØKR]

Ride quality is very good overall on the 'Stars whilst Desiro ride quality is perfect on good track, encounter any bad track or some bad points and you get thrown from side to side, the ride on the 'Stars is much more conventional and overall it is is better.

Ride quality is one of the Electostars' weak points. Try using the toilet on a Brighton line train at speed.

They are not as smooth riding as the CIGs, and that was obvious when by types were in service together. I believe the explanation is quite simple and the solution equally simple, in principle. Mark 1 stock vehicles had couplings that put them in compression. Adjacent gangway face plates acted as a type of shock absorber to provide inter-vehicular damping. This was realised when mark 4 stock was introduced and suffered from poor ride quality originally. It is a good example of if something is not bust don't try to fix it. The mark 1 gangway was an inexpensive and simple design that did its job well.

The mark 4 problem was solved by fitting "buffers". Trains such as the Norwegian EMUs have long diagonal shock absorbers fitted between adjacent vehicles, which provide some damping, but it is something else that has to be taken off and put back when vehicles are joined and separated, and something else to go wrong.

 

[Class377/5]

How do you come to that conclusion on something that doesn't exist outside of a 3D model/technical drawings? I note you say products rather than anything else, which is a wise choice of words.

If you are in the know or can direct me to some more substantial information on the design, I will believe the spin Derby is spitting out. Until then, I keep my reservations.

It's a redesigned body with upgraded tech. It's a step up from Electrostar like Networkers are a step behind.

Bombardier are being very tight lipped about it for some reason.

Please take a 377/5 operated Bedford bound train from St Pancras non-stop to St Albans, then tell me that .

Not just the MML either. No excuse with the 377/5 as they are an existing design.

...Because even in its concept stage, the design is significantly different... Bombardier wouldn't invest in developing a train that won't meet the requirements for a high-performance EMU. That may also be why the Electrostar has been made for so long; if it meets the requirements for a suburban EMU, then why change it?

it's not at the concept stage, it's been fully designed and ready to be built.

Bombardier spent time upgrading the Electrostar design with the best of all it's trains with a new stronger but lighter body. However Bombardier won't build anything where as Siemens has built some test prototype bodies for testing prior to any contract being signed.

Siemens have announced they spent (I think) €50m on the Desio City development work. Why are Bombardier so quiet with the Adventra?

 

[D365]

Perhaps it's a different attitude to business? Although that really doesn't help Bombardier... I heard the Scots were looking at 377s but they only offered 379s, so they went to Siemens who were a lot more flexible with the 380. Ironic somewhat because both are halfway designs, bridging the gap between the current and next-generation EMUs which have been designed.

(Plus Siemens is willing to build more 350s for LM and FTPE)

 

[fgwrich]

Derby..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_ZeJqNt4Hk

In fairness the last good thing that came out of Litchurch Lane was the 158/9.. Everything else since is....
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


That would be why Irish Rail told them no chance.. Derby offered a 170 for the Irish Intercity units...

Irish Rail said no, we want something different..

Derby said its a 170 or nothing else..

Irish Rail went to Japan/Korea for their DMU's as they gave what the customer asked for..

Thats why they lost the ThamesLink contract.. Not willing to build something that has been asked for. And unwilling to change the production line..

Obviously nothing changes in Derby then. They tried the exact same thing twice with NI Railways. NIR Wants' new DMUs, Derby offers them the 170. They go to CAF and purchase / build the 3000s. Couple of years later, NI Railways wants' more new lighterweight DMUs. Bombardier offers them the then at concept 172. They lose, CAF builds them the 4000 Class.

Interesting too the differences between the 172 & 4CK - Same engine, Same transmission, but the 4000's do seem so much better. Especially on acceleration & quality.

But going back to Bombardier for a moment, as i've said before, you do have to wonder about the senior UK management. After all, if they were completely interested in the UK market then they would surely have:
Come up with several new designs before now.
Offered the customers what they wanted, with a Siemens / Alstom style customer interaction.
Be more proactive on technical issues.
And consider doing things such as building trams in Derby again? Derby is used to Kit Construction, so what's holding Bombardier back from constructing new trams back in Derby?

 

[SprinterMan]

The mark 4 problem was solved by fitting "buffers". Trains such as the Norwegian EMUs have long diagonal shock absorbers fitted between adjacent vehicles, which provide some damping, but it is something else that has to be taken off and put back when vehicles are joined and separated, and something else to go wrong.

I think Voyagers have these as well.

Adam

 

[junglejames]

Obviously nothing changes in Derby then. They tried the exact same thing twice with NI Railways. NIR Wants' new DMUs, Derby offers them the 170. They go to CAF and purchase / build the 3000s. Couple of years later, NI Railways wants' more new lighterweight DMUs. Bombardier offers them the then at concept 172. They lose, CAF builds them the 4000 Class.

The 172s would have suited NIs work quite nicely.

Interesting too the differences between the 172 & 4CK - Same engine, Same transmission, but the 4000's do seem so much better. Especially on acceleration & quality.

Thats quite often apparent with Derby built stuff though. Materials can seem on the cheaper side, and quality sometimes fails to impress.
The LM 170s being those that really do seem as though they have literally been chucked together. Too many vibrations and rattles.

Derby needs new owners and new management, urgently. They do seem to have gotten worse since Bombardier took over.

 

[starrymarkb]

Obviously nothing changes in Derby then. They tried the exact same thing twice with NI Railways. NIR Wants' new DMUs, Derby offers them the 170. They go to CAF and purchase / build the 3000s. Couple of years later, NI Railways wants' more new lighterweight DMUs. Bombardier offers them the then at concept 172. They lose, CAF builds them the 4000 Class.

Interesting too the differences between the 172 & 4CK - Same engine, Same transmission, but the 4000's do seem so much better. Especially on acceleration & quality.

But going back to Bombardier for a moment, as i've said before, you do have to wonder about the senior UK management. After all, if they were completely interested in the UK market then they would surely have:
Come up with several new designs before now.
Offered the customers what they wanted, with a Siemens / Alstom style customer interaction.
Be more proactive on technical issues.
And consider doing things such as building trams in Derby again? Derby is used to Kit Construction, so what's holding Bombardier back from constructing new trams back in Derby?

That and closing the Refurbishment side of the business after the FGW Mk3s, especially with lots of stuff needing major accessibility mods in the next few years

 

[junglejames]

Ride quality is one of the Electostars' weak points. Try using the toilet on a Brighton line train at speed.

They are not as smooth riding as the CIGs, and that was obvious when by types were in service together.

When the 375s first came out, it was actually amazing how smooth they were compared to any of the old slammers. You werent jolted all over the place, and you never felt like you were on a roller coaster ride!! (Still prefer the slammers though!) The only problem with them, which I only noticed once pointed out to me, was the body roll.
You could hardly feel it sat down, but walk down the train at speed, and it was very apparent.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

When the 375s first came out, it was actually amazing how smooth they were compared to any of the old slammers. You werent jolted all over the place, and you never felt like you were on a roller coaster ride!! (Still prefer the slammers though!) The only problem with them, which I only noticed once pointed out to me, was the body roll.
You could hardly feel it sat down, but walk down the train at speed, and it was very apparent.

Yes it's the rolling movement. Very noticeable in the toilet!

 

[junglejames]

Yes it's the rolling movement. Very noticeable in the toilet!

Yep. Thats the only annoying bit. Overall though they are much better than the slammers. CIGs or not. Admittedly CIGs werent as bad as some of the others, but they still jolted you around a lot. They dont come close to any new rolling stock.

On the whole, I wouldnt say Electrostars were noticeably worse than Desiros. Not quite as much roll on the Desrios, but thats about it.

 

[43074]

An advantage of the turbostars over other designs is that all of the Turbostars are compatible with older BR DMU designs - for example a 172 can work with a 165 or a 153 - whereas the Alstom/Siemens products of similar spec (Class 175/185) can't do this.

Having said this, the 175s are much better suited to longer distance travel.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Siemens are in trouble again: the launch of London to Frankfurt services has been postponed due to late delivery of Siemens stock: http://www.railtechnologymagazine.com/News/london-frankfurt-launch-postponed-due-to-siemens-delays

 

[MCR247]

Tbf they were never really going to start before the olympics were they?

 

[starrymarkb]

A 3 year delay due to software doesn't sound quite right... Unless it has knock of effects for getting them Certified outside Germany...

Thinking though DB seem to be having a lot of problems with recent stock orders, ICE-Ts (Bombardier/Siemens), Berlin S-Bahn (Bombardier), Velaro D (Siemens) all seem to have been troublesome requiring the fleets to be grounded!

These are also the first NG Velaros, wonder if there will be a knock on with the E320s (which are a similar design)

 

[fgwrich]

Tbf they were never really going to start before the olympics were they?

DB originally wanted to run London-Frankfurt trains for the 2012 Olympics, but then pushed the start date back to 2013 – but further delays mean the service will not now be launched until at least 2016.

Hang on, i thought the main reason for the delay was actually down the the Channel Tunnels IGB. IIRC, they did hint at a 2012 start, but i thought DB Then decided to push the date back further...

 

[Class377/5]

Tbf they were never really going to start before the olympics were they?

No they weren't. dec 2012 was earliest with idea of bring in althetes in via ICE3 and the Chunnel.

(Plus Siemens is willing to build more 350s for LM and FTPE)

Siemens applied to buy more 350s when the 350/2 were still under construction. It was thought at this time they would be an add on to that build not a few years later.

Siemens are in trouble again: the launch of London to Frankfurt services has been postponed due to late delivery of Siemens stock: http://www.railtechnologymagazine.com/News/london-frankfurt-launch-postponed-due-to-siemens-delays

That story has got their facts wrong. There was too batches of the new trains. One for normal HS services across Europe and then a special set of units for use in the Chunnel. Both had different delivery dates however ones for the Chunnel services were in 2013 not 2011. Seems its in fashion to bash Siemens and ignore any facts that doesn't support that. Note the quotes never mention the Chunnel stock is telling......

Lazy.