Crossrail Rolling Stock Procurement

Status
Not open for further replies.

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
14,648
Location
Mold, Clwyd
Crossrail has started the procurement of its trains, with tenders going to the four bidders: Bombardier, Siemens, CAF, Hitachi.

Justine Greening has issued a statement about the procurement:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/news/statements/greening-20120228/

and Crossrail has issued this statement which includes a link to the train spec:
http://www.crossrail.co.uk/news/press-releases/crossrail-issues-rolling-stock-depot-tender

I can't see the ITT itself anywhere, maybe they don't want us to read the detail. Even the train spec is the glossy version.
Two years to arrive at the winner (Spring 2014) and then three years to first delivery of 60x205m trains with ATO and ETCS.
Only 90mph required, so maybe the extension from Maidenhead to Reading is not on the agenda any more.
They have specified a 3rd rail conversion capability, I assume this is in case of extension into Kent.

I imagine the folk at Derby are particularly interested in this one.
The bid includes financing and servicing, like Thameslink, so TfL is buying a service, not just trains.
Justine Greening's remarks about the procurement (identifying the origin of all the components, and the amount of UK content) are very interesting, but certainly don't rule out a non-UK build.
The winner will be the supplier offering the "most economically advantageous bid".
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

aformeruser

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
30,637
The bid includes financing and servicing, like Thameslink, so TfL is buying a service, not just trains.
Isn't that the area Siemens are much better than Bombardier at?

One bit I've noted is: These new trains will provide around 27,000 seats
How many of those 27,000 are replacement seats and how many are additional seats?
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
14,648
Location
Mold, Clwyd
Isn't that the area Siemens are much better than Bombardier at?
One bit I've noted is: These new trains will provide around 27,000 seats
How many of those 27,000 are replacement seats and how many are additional seats?
Yes, probably!
The Treasury wants a PFI deal, otherwise it goes on external borrowing.
It's just up to Bombardier to find a nicer banker than Siemens can...

I don't know enough about Crossrail, particularly the eastern end, to comment about the seats, but every time I look at it in Thames Valley commuter terms (I used to be one) it looks less and less attractive.
I bet they will prefer their current 165/166s.
 

John55

Member
Joined
24 Jun 2011
Messages
800
Location
South East
On a semantic note it is the suppliers who do the tendering, hence the invitation to tender (or in this case negotiate) comes from the purchaser.

Always helps understanding to get it the correct way round.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
23,262
Crossrail has started the procurement of its trains, with tenders going to the four bidders: Bombardier, Siemens, CAF, Hitachi.
Tenders don't go to bidders, tenders come from bidders, normally after they have been issued with an 'invitation to tender'.

However, in this case the DfT's announcement reckons this is an 'invitation to negotiate'; and that may be a significant difference to a normal ITT - does anyone know what she's on about?
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
14,648
Location
Mold, Clwyd
On a semantic note it is the suppliers who do the tendering, hence the invitation to tender (or in this case negotiate) comes from the purchaser.
Always helps understanding to get it the correct way round.
Yes it says "tender documents have been issued to...".
I was more worried about whether it was "Crossrail has" or Crossrail have"...
 
Last edited:

junglejames

Established Member
Joined
8 Dec 2010
Messages
2,069
"for utmost reliability from day one" Goodbye Bombardier.
The problem is, if its a new design, you can never know what will be reliable, and what wont. Most would have expected 380s to be reliable from day 1, but it never happened. Nobody could have expected the massive difference between 180s and voyagers, but look what we got.

All you can say, is that normally Siemens have the better stuff electrically, and usually seem better put together. But that doesnt seem to come into it much, because otherwise Siemens would be building everything.

If however its based on an original design, then most stock has an acceptable level of reliability. So it doesnt really rule anybody out.

Did I see somewhere that TFL are leading it? Suggesting Crossrail will be part of LO. If so, then I would suggest they would want something compatible with 378s. So that, combined with Ms Greenings comments about the UK, and the massive fuss surrounding Derby, makes me reckon Derby will get the work. In fact, id bet money on it. Assuming of course Derby is still open.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Isn't that the area Siemens are much better than Bombardier at?
Not that im trying to stick up for one builder over another, but dont Bombardier do quite a fine job looking after the voyagers?
Id say given the chance, and the will power, this wouldnt prove a problem.
Ah, sorry, you were on about financing as well? My mistake!!
 
Last edited:

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
23,262
How many of those 27,000 are replacement seats and how many are additional seats?
60 trains ordered - that's 450 seats each, and exactly 27000 new seats in total. (Spread over 10 cars, so stacks of standing room.)

This is a completely different type of 'number of seats' to when they introduce a second hand Pacer somewhere, and multiply the number of seats by the number of return services through somewhere important over the course of a day, resulting in a massively exaggerated figure.

However as you rightly imply, the 27000 'new seats' are replacing all the current trains on the Shenfield metro, most FGW suburbans, and Heathrow Connect, so the true figure ought to be significantly less...
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
22,476
Location
Redcar
The problem is, if its a new design, you can never know what will be reliable, and what wont. Most would have expected 380s to be reliable from day 1, but it never happened. Nobody could have expected the massive difference between 180s and voyagers, but look what we got.
I would have thought that the Siemens bid would on the whole be using the same rolling stock as they're building for Thameslink (with minor modifications to meet the exact specification) so any bugs would likely have been worked out during the testing, commissioning and early running of the Thameslink stock. Should be quite a selling point being able to say that they'll be offering a product that's already been run in.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
23,262
Did I see somewhere that TFL are leading it? Suggesting Crossrail will be part of LO. If so, then I would suggest they would want something compatible with 378s.
IIRC it has never been suggested anywhere that Crossrail will be run as part of LO. There doesn't seem to be any operational necessity for the trains to be compatible with LO's existing fleet either, so I don't believe that is an advantage for Bombardier...
 

Old Hill Bank

Member
Joined
6 Mar 2010
Messages
971
Location
Kidderminster
No mention in the high level summary for the stock about toilets, we are in the year 2012 not 1852!!!!
Please no more new builds like 378 or 172/0.
Our visitors from overseas coming in to London from Heathrow might see us as the third world country we are setting ourselves to be!!
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
14,648
Location
Mold, Clwyd
IIRC it has never been suggested anywhere that Crossrail will be run as part of LO. There doesn't seem to be any operational necessity for the trains to be compatible with LO's existing fleet either, so I don't believe that is an advantage for Bombardier...
Crossrail is jointly owned by DfT/TfL, but TfL are leading on the project management and rolling stock procurement.
Crossrail will become a separate joint operation, fronted by TfL but not part of LO or LU.
 

aformeruser

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
30,637
However as you rightly imply, the 27000 'new seats' are replacing all the current trains on the Shenfield metro, most FGW suburbans, and Heathrow Connect, so the true figure ought to be significantly less...
There should be 3 figures given in my opinion:
1. The number of seats on the new trains, as given.
2. The number of extra seats in the Crossrail area compared with the current number.
3. The number of extra seats available for cascade to other areas as a result of Crossrail.

3 would partly depend on whether some trains near the end of their lives get written off or get put in to service for another couple of years, so probably should be expressed as a minimum number with the prefix of 'at least.'

Some people might also say 3 hasn't been properly taken in to consideration yet but it should have been if they are trying to justify the cost of all the new trains.
 
Last edited:

Robbies

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2009
Messages
1,997
Location
Berkshire
The only 90mph required is down to the fact that the trains will be using the GW Slow lines and the services will replace existing services out of Paddington to Maidenhead and Reading that are run by Class 165/166 trains.

As for the third rail aspect, could that be as someone has suggested for services to be extended to Kent and maybe into Sussex as well if there is scope? I was also wondering if the missing third rail link between Reading and Gatwick would be put in place, unless the trains would be running in to Reading to then go out on the third rail to Waterloo in some way taking over the Reading - Waterloo servicess as well?

I know that there has been talk of making a connection into London Heathrow from the Reading - Waterloo line, so it could be for this if it ever goes ahead?
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
23,262
As for the third rail aspect, could that be as someone has suggested for services to be extended to Kent and maybe into Sussex as well if there is scope? I was also wondering if the missing third rail link between Reading and Gatwick would be put in place, unless the trains would be running in to Reading to then go out on the third rail to Waterloo in some way taking over the Reading - Waterloo servicess as well?
The third rail option is purely about extending beyond Abbey Wood onto Southeastern metals, and is not a new idea, it was in the original rolling stock announcements when they were calling for the shortlist.

But your other imaginary extensions are just that. The fleet is sized only for the timetable and routes allowed in the Crossrail Act, even the possible extension to Reading would need additional stock - that they aren't mentioning.

Anyway, where's the possible operational benefit of including Reading/Waterloo/Gatwick services in the franchise - they seem to have no synergies whatsoever...
 

AndrewP

Member
Joined
5 Sep 2011
Messages
290
However, in this case the DfT's announcement reckons this is an 'invitation to negotiate'; and that may be a significant difference to a normal ITT - does anyone know what she's on about?
An invitation to tender is where the product or service is pretty well defined therefore any negotiation will be minor and typically to provide clarification and tie up the odd loose end.

An invitation to negotiate (ITN) is a very different animal in that the bidders' proposal is their starting bid and is then refined over a course of meetings so the final price and product or service can be radically different to the initial proposal. You would use an ITN where you are either unclear as to what you actually want or you are looking for the supply market to demonstrate what they can deliver and how innovative they can be.

ITNs are relatively recent as they only became allowable under procurement legislation in the last few years.

As for the award being based on the MEAB(T) principle this means nothing it just means you are not committed to awarding on a single criteria.

And yes I am available to provide professional procurement support if anyone needs it! (its a key area in which I provide consultancy services)
 

Robbies

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2009
Messages
1,997
Location
Berkshire
The third rail option is purely about extending beyond Abbey Wood onto Southeastern metals, and is not a new idea, it was in the original rolling stock announcements when they were calling for the shortlist.

But your other imaginary extensions are just that. The fleet is sized only for the timetable and routes allowed in the Crossrail Act, even the possible extension to Reading would need additional stock - that they aren't mentioning.

Anyway, where's the possible operational benefit of including Reading/Waterloo/Gatwick services in the franchise - they seem to have no synergies whatsoever...
Where are the Crossrail trains going to be stabled again....... Oh dear it is Reading, so how would they need extra stock for this please when even the Dft themselves have in the pass admitted that the Crossrail services would take over the Paddington - Reading Services.

The Operational benefit would come in having a line from the Reading to Waterloo route that goes on into Heathrow and joins up with the existing line so that trains could circle back to through the London corridor of Crossrail. This would also stop the need for any Heathrow bus links such as the RailAir link from Reading.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
23,262
Where are the Crossrail trains going to be stabled again....... Oh dear it is Reading, so how would they need extra stock for this please when even the Dft themselves have in the pass admitted that the Crossrail services would take over the Paddington - Reading Services.
Er... All Crossrail stabling is at Old Oak Common. The new stabling being built at Reading is for existing DMUs (to be replaced partially by future GW EMUs such as 319s) and IEP. The DfT have never said that Crossrail will go beyond Maidenhead yet, they have only safeguarded the necessary route alterations.

The Operational benefit would come in having a line from the Reading to Waterloo route that goes on into Heathrow and joins up with the existing line so that trains could circle back to through the London corridor of Crossrail. This would also stop the need for any Heathrow bus links such as the RailAir link from Reading.
That isn't what you said. I'd agree with running Reading > Heathrow > Crossrail, but you clearly mentioned running to Waterloo and Gatwick in your previous post.
 

Robbies

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2009
Messages
1,997
Location
Berkshire
Er... All Crossrail stabling is at Old Oak Common. The new stabling being built at Reading is for existing DMUs (to be replaced partially by future GW EMUs such as 319s) and IEP. The DfT have never said that Crossrail will go beyond Maidenhead yet, they have only safeguarded the necessary route alterations.



That isn't what you said. I'd agree with running Reading > Heathrow > Crossrail, but you clearly mentioned running to Waterloo and Gatwick in your previous post.
Just think of them as future ideas to increase Crossrail and give better services to Heathrow/Gatwick to those of us within Berkshire/Surrey etc... where connections to Heathrow/Gatwick are better off made by car as it takes twice as long by train at the moment......;)
 

SwindonPkwy

Member
Joined
2 Aug 2011
Messages
273
Location
Swindon.
So, getting back on topic in terms of the procurement process. How close is the specification to Thameslink and what difficulties does that give Bombardier, CAF and Hitachi?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I know very little about Hitachi's suburban pedigree but their inclusion in the tendering process is interesting. They will obviously be keen to build on the IEP preferred bidder status. Right now, though, the yen is very high and so to be competitive they may need to 'localise' quite a lot of the manufacturing. The UK content could make it a politically acceptable deal. I also think that being Japanese they will be able to secure some very good finance for the PFI side.
 

Uzair

Member
Joined
15 Apr 2009
Messages
192
Location
London
A bit off topic, but it says on various places on the internet that the trains are going to have high capacity seating. Hopefully this won't at all mimic the seats on the HC 450's?
 

Chris125

Established Member
Joined
12 Nov 2009
Messages
2,620
Most would have expected 380s to be reliable from day 1, but it never happened.
Really? The 380 was a halfway house between the previous Desiro classes and the forthcoming Desiro City, so it was always going to have more issues than a simple follow-on order of an existing design.

Chris
 

jopsuk

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2008
Messages
12,423
A bit off topic, but it says on various places on the internet that the trains are going to have high capacity seating. Hopefully this won't at all mimic the seats on the HC 450's?
You are remembering that Crossrail is basically a larger bore tube line yes? That it replaces Heathrow Connect and the Shenfield Metro?

Though I'd actually reckon it'll be narrow 2+2 seating with a wide aisle mainly (like the 455 refurb on SWT) with possibly some sections more like 378s...
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
11,724
What are the neccesary route modifications for Crossrail to go to Reading?
Surely the GW electrification is going to do all the neccesary infrastructure work anyway, the lack of an extension in these documents may be to prevent the political opponents of crossrail assigning the costs of the GWML project reaching Reading to Crossrail and thus making its budget appear even more inflated than it already is.
 

junglejames

Established Member
Joined
8 Dec 2010
Messages
2,069
Really? The 380 was a halfway house between the previous Desiro classes and the forthcoming Desiro City, so it was always going to have more issues than a simple follow-on order of an existing design.

Chris
Yes, but did we really expect them to be as bad as they were at first?
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
23,262
A bit off topic, but it says on various places on the internet that the trains are going to have high capacity seating. Hopefully this won't at all mimic the seats on the HC 450's?
The HC 450s were a modification to existing stock that was designed to be reversible, so shouldn't be seen as a precedent. If you were to design a 2+2 layout with a wide gangway you wouldn't just be removing the third set of a group of three with a view to its possible reinstatement later, you'd have a clean sheet of paper.

As their single page so called spec sheet suggests, the 10 car train will have only 450 seats, so 45 per car on average, but AIUI they aren't losing space for stuff like toilets, so in comparison to the 450/5's average 60 seats per car they ought to have significantly more standing room - even if the seats are slightly further apart...
 

Chz

Member
Joined
28 Jun 2010
Messages
12
"for utmost reliability from day one" Goodbye Bombardier.
I'm amazed that no-one can remember back when the Desiros first arrived. They'd canned the Juniper order due to them being so unreliable, but the Desiros were just as bad when they got here at first. In fact, due to the fact that they'd been working out the kinks for a few years already, the Desiros were less reliable than the bloody Junipers when they started out. (I hear the 458s are actually quite good these days. Only 10 years to sort them out.)

What Siemens did do well was to take the lessons learned and put them into future orders very well. Something that Derby seems to have trouble with.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top