Great British Railways: Potential effects on new trains orders?

[RobShipway]

One of the points raised by Sad Sprinter was as follows

I wonder if this will have any implications for the train building industry. Whether the merger once more or track and train will stimulate demand for more homegrown research on rolling stock design. I hope so.


I personally think that they will be more demand for homegrown trains, but where you have orders for different types of trains I think you may end up with orders of designs designated by GBR, to be used in all regions.

 

[The Planner]

One of the points raised by Sad Sprinter was as follows

I wonder if this will have any implications for the train building industry. Whether the merger once more or track and train will stimulate demand for more homegrown research on rolling stock design. I hope so.


I personally think that they will be more demand for homegrown trains, but where you have orders for different types of trains I think you may end up with orders of designs designated by GBR, to be used in all regions.

It will come down to £££ as it always does.

 

[JonathanH]

One of the points raised by Sad Sprinter was as follows

I wonder if this will have any implications for the train building industry. Whether the merger once more or track and train will stimulate demand for more homegrown research on rolling stock design. I hope so.


I personally think that they will be more demand for homegrown trains, but where you have orders for different types of trains I think you may end up with orders of designs designated by GBR, to be used in all regions.

One of the things mentioned is that 75 distinct types of train is too many - yet most of that is because of the lifespan of trains and sourcing from different companies. In line with lot of the anti-competitive rhetoric in the White paper it seems they want more standardisation.

 

[RobShipway]

One of the things mentioned is that 75 distinct types of train is too many - yet most of that is because of the lifespan of trains and sourcing from different companies. In line with lot of the anti-competitive rhetoric in the White paper it seems they want more standardisation.

I must confess I have not read the report, but did expect there to be a note of getting down from the 75 distinct types of trains down to say 3 or 5 types of trains or even 1.

The Planner:
It will come down to £££ as it always does.

The money side would be cut down, with just ordering one type of train to suit multiple routes which I know is something that British Rail tried to do a few times.

 

[JonathanH]

I must confess I have not read the report, but did expect there to be a note of getting down from the 75 distinct types of trains down to say 3 or 5 types of trains or even 1.

The reduction of train types to that number is clearly not happening any time soon.

 

[RobShipway]

The reduction of train types to that number is clearly not happening any time soon.

No it will not happen anytime soon. But possibly from 2040 onwards.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No it will not happen anytime soon. But possibly from 2040 onwards.

That's already happening anyway, with "80x with everything" for long distance TOCs.

 

[JonathanH]

That's already happening anyway, with "80x with everything" for long distance TOCs.

Available in different lengths, power source etc. I dont suppose that they were counted as one type of train in that identification of 75 different train types.

Let's not forget that there are four different train assembly plants in the UK. Is the new central organisation going to design trains and get the different plants to build the same model? I doubt it.

 

[E100]

It's interesting that under BR vs privatisation there hasn't really been much difference. Whilst rationalisation of types certainly has benefits recent events have shown the problem of systematic failures so I'm sure a fair degree of diversity will remain.

 

[Aictos]

That's already happening anyway, with "80x with everything" for long distance TOCs.

With Stadler's Class 755 platform being for everything regional services such as Manchester to Windermere, Nottingham to Cardiff, Birmingham to Stansted, Glasgow Queen Street to Perth etc which makes the most of existing and future electrification.

 

[The Planner]

I must confess I have not read the report, but did expect there to be a note of getting down from the 75 distinct types of trains down to say 3 or 5 types of trains or even 1.

The Planner:
It will come down to £££ as it always does.

The money side would be cut down, with just ordering one type of train to suit multiple routes which I know is something that British Rail tried to do a few times.

Yes, but that will go to tender as it has to and even a "standardised" train will be substantially based off its cost.

 

[Taunton]

One of the things mentioned is that 75 distinct types of train is too many - yet most of that is because of the lifespan of trains and sourcing from different companies. In line with lot of the anti-competitive rhetoric in the White paper it seems they want more standardisation.

The last time it was all rolled together, in 1948, the management of the era set off on their own "standardisation", which was different to anything that had gone before and broadly not as good either.

Given that Hitachi's design had major input from the DfT, whose personnel will doubtless continue to be well to the fore (note that THEY haven't been merged in), they should have a head start. The other manufacturers, especially those setting up works in this country, can consider whether to cut their losses and pull out now.

 

[swt_passenger]

75 distinct types? Is that really true? How many Electrostar types are there really, if you ignore seating layouts etc.
Are 158 and 159 really a different type, or an SWT inspired stock management shorthand?

 

[JamesT]

The last time it was all rolled together, in 1948, the management of the era set off on their own "standardisation", which was different to anything that had gone before and broadly not as good either.

Given that Hitachi's design had major input from the DfT, whose personnel will doubtless continue to be well to the fore (note that THEY haven't been merged in), they should have a head start. The other manufacturers, especially those setting up works in this country, can consider whether to cut their losses and pull out now.

Isn't it arguable that both Siemens and Bombardier also have had a similar experience to Hitachi in the procurements of classes 700 and 345 being led by the DfT? Which had subsequently been rolled out wider (as variants at least).
The interesting question would be if you were going for greater standardisation and were doing the Crossrail and Thameslink procurements now, would you buy the same train for both lines? They seem to be fulfilling a very similar role.

I could see Hitachi having a head-start on replacing anything long-distance, like @Bletchleyite said, but there's a lot more to UK rolling stock than that. There almost certainly needs to be something with onboard power of some form to replace the existing 1xx series when they hit end of life, I don't think either of Hitachi's current UK offerings fit that niche. Then there are non-long distance electric services, currently provided by 3xx and 4xx. Would they be provided by variants of the Aventras and Desiro City? Or is that a distinct enough use-case that it deserves a different train type?

Train manufacturers also tend to end of life their designs after a while, which provides an opportunity for manufacturers to compete.

 

[RobShipway]

The last time it was all rolled together, in 1948, the management of the era set off on their own "standardisation", which was different to anything that had gone before and broadly not as good either.

Given that Hitachi's design had major input from the DfT, whose personnel will doubtless continue to be well to the fore (note that THEY haven't been merged in), they should have a head start. The other manufacturers, especially those setting up works in this country, can consider whether to cut their losses and pull out now.

I agree when it comes to Inter-City trains that it is most likely going to be IET (Hitachi AT300) trains that are used. But as JamesT has said in his post, there are other manufacturers with experience in this field.

When it comes to regional trains, you Have Siemens with their Desiro City/HC/Double Deck train, Hitachi with the AT200, Bombardier/Alstom with Aventra trains, CAF with it's Civity trains, Stadler Rail with it's Flirt trains and any other train manufacturer that may factories or facilities within the UK.

 

[Mikey C]

The last time it was all rolled together, in 1948, the management of the era set off on their own "standardisation", which was different to anything that had gone before and broadly not as good either.

Given that Hitachi's design had major input from the DfT, whose personnel will doubtless continue to be well to the fore (note that THEY haven't been merged in), they should have a head start. The other manufacturers, especially those setting up works in this country, can consider whether to cut their losses and pull out now.

I don't see it making that much difference. The Hitachi 80x design is obviously the front runner for anyone buying a 125mph "Inter City" style Bimode train, but that would be the case whatever the structure of the railways, as it's the established design.

But that has no affect on the rest of the market, as all the other manufacturers with established and proven products will continue to sell into the UK, and indeed GBR will want the rivalry to keep prices down and hopefully quality up...

 

[ashkeba]

I agree when it comes to Inter-City trains that it is most likely going to be IET (Hitachi AT300) trains that are used.

Which would be a great shame with how poor their large luggage, bike spaces and catering are for long distance services. Maybe some could be remedied with better internal fittings but with DfT in charge, will they really implicitly admit a mistake by changing future orders?

The Stadler Flirts are a better intercity and interregional train but I think future sales just became much more difficult.

 

[Domh245]

The main/only benefit I see is the potential for more strategic long term ordering to happen - both from the operations side of things, but potentially also drip feeding factories work to keep them open

 

[JaJaWa]

Which would be a great shame with how poor their large luggage, bike spaces and catering are for long distance services. Maybe some could be remedied with better internal fittings but with DfT in charge, will they really implicitly admit a mistake by changing future orders?

Considering the GBR plan says "Great British Railways will introduce new design and ride standards that will make sure all new trains are more comfortable than their predecessors. Subject to negotiations with suppliers and business case approval, Great British Railways will bring forward the normal replacement cycles on existing trains equipped with "ironing-board"-like seats, beginning with long-distance trains, in order to make the seats significantly more comfortable, or to replace and eventually remove them altogether" they are considering changing the existing ones, let alone future orders.

 

[JonathanH]

Great British Railways will bring forward the normal replacement cycles on existing trains equipped with "ironing-board"-like seats, beginning with long-distance trains, in order to make the seats significantly more comfortable, or to replace and eventually remove them altogether" they are considering changing the existing ones, let alone future orders.

In an era where cuts in costs are required, the bringing forward of seat replacement sounds like a shocking waste of money. A lot of additional revenue would be needed to justify the replacement of seats across large fleets. I doubt that the increase in revenue generated is sufficient to pay for new seats (although I note that Avanti are already meant to be doing this which will perhaps be put out as an example of this process starting).

 

[HSTEd]

The Networker and Sprinter demonstrates that one can have multiplier suppliers for trains and still ensure interoperability.

Ideally this would be another era of Sprinterisation, undoing the damage that has been done by the privatised era.

 

[Taunton]

In an era where cuts in costs are required, the bringing forward of seat replacement sounds like a shocking waste of money. A lot of additional revenue would be needed to justify the replacement of seats across large fleets. I doubt that the increase in revenue generated is sufficient to pay for new seats (although I note that Avanti are already meant to be doing this which will perhaps be put out as an example of this process starting).

It's an absolute mystery why each new generation of trains now seems to have seats that are worse than what went before.

When we buy new trains, why can't the old, better seats just be transferred across

 

[wireforever]

Will the new rail company go to a all electric/battery/green fuel fleet for passenger travel and will the freight operators do the same

 

[The Planner]

Will the new rail company go to a all electric/battery/green fuel fleet for passenger travel and will the freight operators do the same

Considering freight is effectively open access, they will probably carry on as they see fit for the foreseeable.

 

[Mikey C]

In an era where cuts in costs are required, the bringing forward of seat replacement sounds like a shocking waste of money. A lot of additional revenue would be needed to justify the replacement of seats across large fleets. I doubt that the increase in revenue generated is sufficient to pay for new seats (although I note that Avanti are already meant to be doing this which will perhaps be put out as an example of this process starting).

In relative terms, it sounds like a good use of money!

 

[Bletchleyite]

In an era where cuts in costs are required, the bringing forward of seat replacement sounds like a shocking waste of money. A lot of additional revenue would be needed to justify the replacement of seats across large fleets. I doubt that the increase in revenue generated is sufficient to pay for new seats (although I note that Avanti are already meant to be doing this which will perhaps be put out as an example of this process starting).

With the Pendolinos now about 20 years old this is a fairly common timing for new seats, to be fair. The 15x (x<=6) mostly received them in the 90s when they were just 10-15 years old.

 

[Rhydgaled]

I must confess I have not read the report, but did expect there to be a note of getting down from the 75 distinct types of trains down to say 3 or 5 types of trains or even 1.

Just one type of train would be madness. At a minimum, I think at least 7 types are likely to be needed:

• 325kph/200mph electric
• INTERCITY electric 125/140mph
• Regional Express electric 100mph
• Regional Express bi-mode (hydrogen + electric) 100mph
• Regional Express IPEMU 100mph
• Outer Suburban electric 100mph
• Inner Suburban electric 100/75mph

You may also need bi-mode and battery versions of the suburban trains, and may need a 75mph regional train (again possibly in battery and hydrogen forms, although you probably won't need an electric-only version of that).

 

[JonathanH]

Just one type of train would be madness. At a minimum, I think at least 7 types are likely to be needed:

• 325kph/200mph electric
• INTERCITY electric 125/140mph
• Regional Express electric 100mph
• Regional Express bi-mode (hydrogen + electric) 100mph
• Regional Express IPEMU 100mph
• Outer Suburban electric 100mph
• Inner Suburban electric 100/75mph

You may also need bi-mode and battery versions of the suburban trains, and may need a 75mph regional train (again possibly in battery and hydrogen forms, although you probably won't need an electric-only version of that).

Multiply by 3 for a new generation of trains every ten years or so.

 

[Mikey C]

Just one type of train would be madness. At a minimum, I think at least 7 types are likely to be needed:

• 325kph/200mph electric
• INTERCITY electric 125/140mph
• Regional Express electric 100mph
• Regional Express bi-mode (hydrogen + electric) 100mph
• Regional Express IPEMU 100mph
• Outer Suburban electric 100mph
• Inner Suburban electric 100/75mph

You may also need bi-mode and battery versions of the suburban trains, and may need a 75mph regional train (again possibly in battery and hydrogen forms, although you probably won't need an electric-only version of that).

The regional express trains and indeed the outer and inner suburban trains can be created from one basic train platform though

The Electrostars for example operate on all sorts of routes, when you consider how different the use of the 378s and 379s is.

 

[HSTEd]

Just one type of train would be madness. At a minimum, I think at least 7 types are likely to be needed:

• 325kph/200mph electric
• INTERCITY electric 125/140mph
• Regional Express electric 100mph
• Regional Express bi-mode (hydrogen + electric) 100mph
• Regional Express IPEMU 100mph
• Outer Suburban electric 100mph
• Inner Suburban electric 100/75mph

You may also need bi-mode and battery versions of the suburban trains, and may need a 75mph regional train (again possibly in battery and hydrogen forms, although you probably won't need an electric-only version of that).

Inner suburban, outer suburban and regional express can all be built out of a single body.
The turbostar/electrostar performs all those functions as it is.

There is little reason in the modern era to build 75mph rolling stock.

You could quite easily end up with:

• 325kph/200mph Large loading gauge train
• 325kph/200mph Classic loading gauge train
• 100mph bi-mode
• 100mph electric