Flood damaged 156478

[matchmaker]

Tender for repair published on the Public Contracts Scotland portal. Estimated cost £400K!

 

[Strathclyder]

A link to the tender's page:
http://www.publiccontractsscotland.gov.uk/search/show/search_view.aspx?ID=JAN198098

Will 478 be repainted into the 'Spotrail' colors during it's repair work?

 

[BestWestern]

£400k... Ouch!!

Who'll be paying; Scotrail who damaged it or the ROSCO who own it?

 

[Murph]

£400k... Ouch!!

Who'll be paying; Scotrail who damaged it or the ROSCO who own it?

The notice is issued by First ScotRail Ltd, but maybe insurance, or do they self-insure?

 

[rdeez]

£400k... Ouch!!

Who'll be paying; Scotrail who damaged it or the ROSCO who own it?

£400k excluding VAT, according to the full notice...ouch indeed

 

[najaB]

Tender for repair published on the Public Contracts Scotland portal. Estimated cost £400K!

What do you guys think the unit cost would be if they were still building 156's? £400K seems like a LOT of money.

 

[edwin_m]

New DMUs are reckoned to be around £1.5 million per vehicle, so £3m for a 2-car.

 

[Blindtraveler]

One wonders if? For that kind of money the DDA Mods etc will be done at the same time? I would guess the interior would need a tidy up after that anyway.↲

 

[pemma]

New DMUs are reckoned to be around £1.5 million per vehicle, so £3m for a 2-car.

Which would last for at least 25 years. The rebuilt 156 might only last 10.

 

[swt_passenger]

As a data point the repair of SWT's 455 which was flattened by a concrete mixer (admittedly a four car unit) was considered to be cost effective at £1.6 million, so about £400,000 per car. With a similar 10 years remaining in service maybe?

 

[najaB]

New DMUs are reckoned to be around £1.5 million per vehicle, so £3m for a 2-car.

So probably something like $800-900K per vehicle for an older design like the 156, as it would be built to meet 1980's regulations.

 

[Murph]

Which would last for at least 25 years. The rebuilt 156 might only last 10.

Ignoring ongoing maintenance over those periods. £40k/year for the 156. £120k/year for the new build. Seems like a no brainer to repair it even for that short a life (and personally I reckon 156s might well go on longer than that), unless it's significantly knackered in major ways beyond the flood damage.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Had Turbostar engines not been foul of emissions regs (for new builds), how much would a 2 car Turbostar have cost?

 

[edwin_m]

Had Turbostar engines not been foul of emissions regs (for new builds), how much would a 2 car Turbostar have cost?

That would probably be somewhere around the £3m I quoted. And only if a manufacturer had a production line running for similar trains, which of course they don't.

 

[PHILIPE]

In the old days, it could have been moved straight away to BR Works with out having to bother about contracts and costings.

 

[455driver]

In the old days, it could have been moved straight away to BR Works with out having to bother about contracts and costings.

But the modern way is so much better!
I mean whats wrong with having a unit out of service for 2 months while you put the repair out to competitive tender, get the quotes in, decide who has won the contract (you might save a coup,le of grand doing it that way) and then move the unit to the repair shop!

I mean it isnt like there is a shortage of units is it!
Oh hang on a minute. :roll:

 

[HarleyDavidson]

I'll just tow it round your garage. You love fixing things, like cars, vans, trucks, buses, coaches.

Come to think of it, is there anything on wheels that you haven't fixed?

 

[Cliveblackpool]

If it was a BR built unit, and BR still in business, they would probably have a set of flooring left over - in stock !!

 

[455driver]

I'll just tow it round your garage. You love fixing things, like cars, vans, trucks, buses, coaches.

Come to think of it, is there anything on wheels that you haven't fixed?

An articulated bus, cant think of anything else (roadwise) that I havent had a play with!
My back keeps reminding me that I am knocking on a bit now though!

 

[PG]

£400k excluding VAT, according to the full notice...ouch indeed

IIRC public transport is zero rated for VAT so they'll get the VAT back

 

[HarleyDavidson]

So that's a nice £80k refund then.

 

[BestWestern]

The notice is issued by First ScotRail Ltd, but maybe insurance, or do they self-insure?

All of the bus operations are self-insured, I presume the rail side is probably the same.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Would the 400k quoted mean that generally everything below solebar level needs replacing?

 

[devinier]

Would the 400k quoted mean that generally everything below solebar level needs replacing?

I wouldn't think so, most of the components below sole bar can withstand some degree of water, they're exposed generally and get blasted by jet washes and steam cleaners during maintenance.
When you factor in the cost of road transport to and from wherever they get repaired, labour costs, and consider that a BSI coupler alone is several thousand pounds, the £400k doesn't go far...

 

[pemma]

Ignoring ongoing maintenance over those periods. £40k/year for the 156. £120k/year for the new build. Seems like a no brainer to repair it even for that short a life (and personally I reckon 156s might well go on longer than that), unless it's significantly knackered in major ways beyond the flood damage.

The oldest 156s will be approaching 40 years service in 10 years time so I reckon if 156s are still in service then the worst examples will have been canalised/scrapped with DMUs not lasting as long as EMUs. Apparently the ROSCOs are looking at options for the worst of the 150s which are suffering badly from corrosion with a suggestion that if a new DMU order was to go ahead it would not only result in all 142s being withdrawn, some 150s and 153s being withdrawn and possibly the 143/4s.

I do think at the moment repairing the 156 is the only option. However, had a new DMU order been in progress I wouldn't be surprised if an extra unit had been added to it with an existing 156 cascaded to Scotland.

 

[BestWestern]

The oldest 156s will be approaching 40 years service in 10 years time so I reckon if 156s are still in service then the worst examples will have been canalised/scrapped with DMUs not lasting as long as EMUs. Apparently the ROSCOs are looking at options for the worst of the 150s which are suffering badly from corrosion with a suggestion that if a new DMU order was to go ahead it would not only result in all 142s being withdrawn, some 150s and 153s being withdrawn and possibly the 143/4s.

I do think at the moment repairing the 156 is the only option. However, had a new DMU order been in progress I wouldn't be surprised if an extra unit had been added to it with an existing 156 cascaded to Scotland.

Rail mag carries a current feature suggesting a heavy rebuild for 156s; I only had a brief scan but very possibly it could have been those on the far north runs. So they may survive an extra decade or two if that goes ahead. In general though I agree, a decent order (preferably for something specially designed to be lightweight and not horrifically expensive to run) would be a good idea and would make sense if it allowed us to shift more than just Pacers. Particularly with current electrification schemes (GWML) already over budget, I think we're going to continue to need a sizeable diesel fleet for some years to come. Many of the 150s are in a very poor state of repair, and it's a concern to consider how much structural integrity can be retained when corrosion appears to be rampant.

However, as the project to fit Universal Access toilets and associated modifications is already underway, I fear they'll simply be patched up enough to manage another 15 - 20 years.

 

[pemma]

However, as the project to fit Universal Access toilets and associated modifications is already underway, I fear they'll simply be patched up enough to manage another 15 - 20 years.

Other than the 144 demonstrator I don't think work is underway on any 142s, 143s, 144s, 150s or 153s. That's a lot of DMUs which will all probably need replacing in the next 10 years whether or not the work is done.

I'm under the impression Porterbrook want to get rid of the single car 153s in one way or another and don't want to order new single car DMUs or split up other DMUs in to single car trains. Therefore, the refurbished Pacer will be a solution for branch lines which currently see 153s but don't need the 125+ seats which a 2 car DMU will provide.

 

[BestWestern]

Other than the 144 demonstrator I don't think work is underway on any 142s, 143s, 144s, 150s or 153s. That's a lot of DMUs which will all probably need replacing in the next 10 years whether or not the work is done.

I'm under the impression Porterbrook want to get rid of the single car 153s in one way or another and don't want to order new single car DMUs or split up other DMUs in to single car trains. Therefore, the refurbished Pacer will be a solution for branch lines which currently see 153s but don't need the 125+ seats which a 2 car DMU will provide.

It's underway now on FGW's first 150, due back shortly. I personally expect to see the 153s being used as centre cars to lengthen other Sprinter sets, either 150 or 156 (or maybe even 155?).

 

[Murph]

It's underway now on FGW's first 150, due back shortly. I personally expect to see the 153s being used as centre cars to lengthen other Sprinter sets, either 150 or 156 (or maybe even 155?).

Better to just re-form them into 155s again, which is what I think is more likely, unless they are significantly knackered structurally, rather than creating heterogeneous units. Or is there a strong need for 3 car sets which couldn't be met by 4 cars consisting of 155+15x?

 

[455driver]

Better to just re-form them into 155s again, which is what I think is more likely, unless they are significantly knackered structurally, rather than creating heterogeneous units. Or is there a strong need for 3 car sets which couldn't be met by 4 cars consisting of 155+15x?

Been at the dictionary have we?
SWT manage fine with their 455/7s which have an ex 508 coach in them!
Mechanically a 150 and a 153 are very similar (anyone noticed that on a 153 the engine isnt in the middle but inboard about the same distance from the drive bogie as a 150 is, what a coincidence ) so your hetero<woteva> unit doesnt really exist.
Also what is the problem with a depot that currently looks after class 150/1 and 153 units having to look after a 3 coach unit consisting of a 153 in the middle of a 150/1?

I dont understand the problem!

We dont need more 2 coach units, down here (FGW Exeter) we need to run 3 coach trains to carry everyone not 4 because 4 is too much capacity for a lot of services (nice thought ) plus the train will be too long for some platforms!
Also if you reform the 153s into 155s you will only be able to strengthen half the services to 4 coaches that you would be able to strengthen to 3!

I dont see a problem with (unmodified) 153s being attached to a (modified) 150 or 156 either, the 'train' will still be PRM-TSI compliant.